In Re the Marriage of Emily Dyvig and Brandon Dyvig Upon the Petition of Emily Dyvig, and Concerning Brandon Dyvig, 16-1637

Emily and Brandon Dyvig married in 2004, had three children, and accumulated significant debt during the 2009 recession; Brandon earned most marital retirement (a Mechdyne 401(k)).
Parties separated in 2015; they negotiated a mediated financial agreement in March 2016 resolving property/debt division, retirement splitting, and other financial matters; Emily later sought to void the mediation agreement at trial based on discrepancies in a Scottrade IRA.
Trial court adopted the mediation agreement, awarded Emily primary physical care and set child support using Brandon’s $70,000 base pay plus 26.5% of commissions for additional child support while three children are minor.
Court denied Emily’s request for rehabilitative alimony, allocated unreimbursed medical expenses 60% to Brandon/40% to Emily based on base incomes, and ordered each party to pay their own trial attorney fees; both parties sought appellate fees.
On de novo review, the Court of Appeals affirmed: mediation agreement upheld, no alimony awarded, medical-expense allocation and fee rulings sustained, and no appellate fees awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Emily)	Defendant's Argument (Brandon)	Held
Whether the mediation agreement should be set aside	Agreement should be voided because Scottrade Roth IRA was empty and Brandon failed to disclose/log-in, implying inequity	Agreement valid; no viable basis to void; parties negotiated with counsel and disclosures were sufficient	Mediation agreement enforced; court properly refused to set it aside
Whether Emily is entitled to spousal (rehabilitative) support	Requests $2,000/month (or at least $780) for four years to aid self-sufficiency after being a stay-at-home mom	Brandon cannot afford alimony given base income, child support obligations, split retirement, and limited liquidity	Denied; court’s finding that Emily failed to show need and Brandon lacked ability to pay is affirmed
Allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses	Brandon’s variable commissions should be considered; he should pay 75%	Use base incomes to avoid punishing Brandon in low-commission years; use known quantities	Affirmed use of base income and 60/40 allocation to Brandon/Emily given income variability and child-support commission carve-out
Trial and appellate attorney fees	Emily seeks trial fees (~$24k) and $10k appellate fees because Brandon has higher income from commissions	Brandon argues liquidity is limited and property settlement consumed available funds; opposes fees	Trial fees: denied (no abuse of discretion). Appellate fees: denied after weighing need and ability to pay

In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (standard for de novo review in dissolution appeals)
In re Marriage of Jones, 653 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 2002) (stipulations enforceable but court may reject unfair or unlawful agreements)
In re Marriage of Ask, 551 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1996) (court retains power to reject stipulations)
In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (measuring spousal support need: self-sufficiency and standard of living)
In re Marriage of Tzortzoudakis, 507 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (definition and purpose of spousal support)
In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (consideration of property settlement in alimony analysis)
In re Marriage of Miller, 532 N.W.2d 160 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (alimony is discretionary, not an absolute right)
In re Marriage of Applegate, 567 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (trial court discretion in attorney-fee awards)
In re Marriage of Grady-Woods, 577 N.W.2d 851 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (attorney-fee awards must be fair and reasonable given financial positions)
In re Marriage of Hoffman, 891 N.W.2d 849 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)
Figley v. W.S. Indus., 801 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (issues raised first in a reply brief are generally not considered)
Young v. Gregg, 480 N.W.2d 75 (Iowa 1992) (procedural rule limiting new issues in reply briefs)