In Re the Marriage of Mary J. Nelson and Kenneth L. Nelson Upon the Petition of Mary J. Nelson, and Concerning Kenneth L. Nelson, 16-0293

Kenneth and Mary Nelson were married in 1981 and operated a family farming business; Kenneth did most labor and worked full‑time off‑farm while Mary handled bookkeeping and seasonal work after separation.
Mary filed for dissolution in 2011; multiple hearings occurred (2013–2015) with the record reopened several times for supplemental financial evidence; decree entered December 31, 2015 and supplemental order January 15, 2016.
The district court found Kenneth had not fully disclosed assets and had engaged in transactions with family that made valuation difficult and concluded he dissipated marital assets during the separation.
The court valued the marital estate at $1,387,000 (including a $250,000 addition for dissipation), allocated $1,234,600 to Kenneth and $152,800 to Mary, and ordered Kenneth to pay Mary a $540,000 equalization payment.
The court awarded Mary temporary and final spousal support: $2,300/month briefly, then $2,000/month continuing until death or remarriage.
Kenneth appealed the property division and spousal support provisions, arguing the court erred in finding dissipation and in the spousal‑support award/duration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kenneth dissipated marital assets	Mary: Kenneth used marital assets post‑separation for personal/household/farm expenses and payments to family, reducing marital estate	Kenneth: Spending was legitimate farm and household expenses, not dissipation	Court: Affirmed dissipation finding; evidence supported post‑separation, atypical, one‑sided expenditures benefiting Kenneth
Whether property division was equitable given dissipation	Mary: Property division should account for dissipation and her smaller share	Kenneth: Division was excessive given alleged legitimate payments and valuation uncertainty	Court: Affirmed property division as equitable, including adjustment for dissipation
Whether spousal support should be awarded and amount	Mary: Needs support; disparity in incomes and lifestyle maintenance justify award	Kenneth: Challenged amount/duration given property award and Mary’s assets	Court: Affirmed $2,000/month as equitable amount (reduced from $2,300 temporary)
Duration of spousal support	Mary: Implied support should continue as ordered by district court	Kenneth: Argued duration should consider property settlement and Mary’s ability to draw retirement income	Court: Modified duration — support ends when Mary begins receiving Social Security benefits

In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa 2003) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2013) (dissipation of marital assets doctrine and factors)
In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (two‑prong dissipation test and factors for assessing expenditures)
In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (spousal support is discretionary and fact‑specific)
In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2005) (spousal support is not an absolute right)
In re Marriage of McLaughlin, 526 N.W.2d 342 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (property division and alimony must be evaluated together)
In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 2016) (reducing/terminating support based on spouse’s ability to draw retirement income)