In Re the Marriage of George E. Hanna and Beth A. Hanna Upon the Petition of George E. Hanna, and Concerning Beth A. Hanna
16-1482
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- George and Beth Hanna divorced after a 31-year marriage; two adult children; trial April 2016; decree entered June 2016 and later amended.
- George is a dentist who incorporated his practice, sold a half interest in 2005, and had a defined‑benefit pension plan funded through the practice; plan lost value in 2008–09 leading to loans to restore funding.
- Beth, a registered nurse with a master’s, stayed home from 2000 until 2010 to care for children; she later returned to work and earns about $91,762 plus retirement contributions.
- The district court awarded George the dental practice (one-half share valued with adjustments), allocated retirement and other marital assets, and ordered George to pay Beth a $250,000 equalization payment in installments.
- The court awarded spousal support (initially reduced on posttrial motion): $3,000/month until Beth is 65, then $1,500/month thereafter (until death or remarriage).
- George appealed the valuation of the dental practice/equalization amount, the allocation of certain debts (including vehicle loans), and the spousal support award; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (George) | Defendant's Argument (Beth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal support: should award be eliminated? | No support needed; George’s recent income decline shows lower ability to pay. | Long marriage, Beth sacrificed career; George’s earning capacity remains high; support required to approximate marital standard of living. | Affirmed award: evidentiary record supports traditional alimony to achieve comparable standard of living given disparity in earning capacity. |
| Dental practice valuation / equalization payment amount | Court overstated practice value by failing to deduct ~$289,217 of practice debts and should reduce equalization to ~$167,000. | Appraisal and court adjustments (accounts receivable, certain loan receivables) were proper; valuation within evidence range. | Affirmed: district court valuation was within permissible range; equalization payment of $250,000 was equitable. |
| Allocation/credit for vehicle debts | Court failed to credit George for car loan debt (~$31,495), making equalization inequitable. | Court adjusted vehicle values where appropriate and assigned debt consistent with factual findings; overall division remained equitable. | Affirmed: court amended vehicle net value where needed and overall property division remained equitable. |
| Appellate attorney fees | (George sought reversal; not asking fees) | Beth requested appellate fees (~$10,550). | Denied Beth’s fee request: she has assets and spousal support; each party bears own appellate fees; costs assessed to George. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review—de novo with weight to district court findings)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (deference to trial court on alimony and valuation issues)
- In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2005) (district court latitude in alimony determinations)
- In re Marriage of Witherly, 867 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (types of spousal support described)
- In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (overlap of alimony labels and purposes)
- In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (purpose of traditional/permanent alimony)