In Re the Marriage of Erenia Dolores Arevalo and Edgar Sifredo Arevalo-Luna Upon the Petition of Erenia Dolores Arevalo, and Concerning Edgar Sifredo Arevalo-Luna, 16-1326

Erenia Arevalo and Edgar Arevalo-Luna married ~14.5 years; three children (twins b.1999, youngest b.2005). Court awarded Erenia physical care and Edgar pays $1,066/month child support for those children; Edgar also pays $920/month for three children from other relationships.
Erenia (born 1966, limited formal education) worked intermittently, most recently in part‑time school food service and McDonald’s; 2015 gross earnings ~$15,966 and net (with tax refund) nearly $23,000.
Edgar (born 1974, more education) worked two full‑time jobs; 2015 combined income ~$65,599 and has IPERS pension accruals. He has substantial child‑support obligations reducing current disposable income.
At dissolution the only contested issue was spousal support; Erenia sought $400/month beginning June 1, 2018, increasing to $1,000/month in 2024 (permanent thereafter). The district court denied spousal support; Erenia appealed and sought $1,500 in appellate fees.
The district court’s property division required Edgar to quitclaim the marital home (already foreclosed), pay a medical bill (~$4,757), and split marital IPERS accruals under Benson; it denied spousal support on multiple grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether spousal support should be awarded	Arevalo argued she is economically dependent, worked intermittently caring for children, has low earning capacity, and needs support that ramps up as Edgar’s child‑support obligations decrease	Edgar (pro se) suggested the court should do what is fair; noted limited ability to pay while high child‑support obligations exist	Court awarded spousal support: $400/month starting June 1, 2018, increasing to $600/month after youngest child graduates; no durational limit except remarriage or death (i.e., effectively permanent)
Appellate attorney fees	Arevalo requested $1,500 in appellate fees given her financial need and success on appeal	Edgar’s ability to pay is limited by obligations; court should exercise discretion	Denied: court found modification provides Adequate means for Arevalo to pay her own appellate fees and declined to award fees

In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2005) (standard of review for spousal‑support determinations)
In re Marriage of Witherly, 867 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (types of spousal support are not mutually exclusive)
In re Marriage of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 2008) (court must consider statutory factors rather than rigid labels for support)
In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1992) (child‑support obligation may be considered when awarding alimony)
In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (discussing durational considerations and increasing spousal support as child‑support obligations decline)
In re Marriage of Van Ryswyk, 492 N.W.2d 728 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (approving spousal‑support increases tied to reductions in child support)
In re Marriage of Wendell, 581 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (need and ability guide traditional alimony)
In re Marriage of Hazen, 778 N.W.2d 55 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (property division’s effect on spousal support equity)
In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006) (appellate attorney fees are discretionary; factors include need and ability to pay)
In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (factors for awarding appellate fees)
In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996) (method for dividing pension/IPERS benefits)