In Re the Marriage of Robert H. Goodrich and Teresa O. Goodrich Upon the Petition of Robert H. Goodrich, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee, and Concerning Teresa O. Goodrich, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant.
16-1211
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Robert and Teresa Goodrich divorced after a 31-year marriage; trial court issued a dissolution decree addressing property division, alimony, life insurance, and attorney fees.
- Teresa (age 56) has a bachelor’s degree, was largely out of the workforce for years, has limited earning capacity (~$22,880), and used inherited funds during litigation; Robert (age 60) is a self-employed consultant with variable income and recent health issues.
- The district court awarded Teresa certain retirement accounts, a $10,000 cash equalization payment, $2,000/month traditional alimony (later reduced from $2,600), ordered a reduction to $1,000/month at Robert’s full retirement age with social security, required Robert to maintain $100,000 life insurance while support continued, and ordered Robert to pay $8,637 of Teresa’s trial attorney fees.
- On postjudgment motion the court adjusted alimony to $2,000 pre-retirement and $1,000 post-retirement; on appeal both parties challenged multiple economic provisions.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo (equitable action), giving weight to district findings but modifying where equity required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robert) | Defendant's Argument (Teresa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cash equalization payment ($10,000) | Payment is inequitable; retirement-account transfers already equalized net worth; cannot afford additional payment | Robert dissipated/diverted funds from home sale and drew HELOC advances, justifying equalization | Reversed: court eliminated the $10,000 equalization payment for lack of evidentiary support for dissipation or disparity |
| Amount of traditional alimony (monthly) | $2,000 is too high; propose $1,000 based on imputed earning capacity (~$58,599) | $2,600 (or more) is reasonable given Robert’s earning potential; district award appropriate | Modified: appellate court set alimony at $1,000/month (pre-retirement) considering ages, health, earning capacity, and equities |
| Automatic reduction of support at Robert’s retirement/social security | If reduced, should be lower ($500) because social security will be limited | Eliminate automatic reduction; address at later modification | Modified: reduction retained but set at $500/month when Robert reaches full retirement age and receives social security benefits |
| Life insurance to secure support ($100,000 until support ends) | Requirement should terminate in 2025 when current policy expires or be reduced; continued coverage may be unaffordable | Insurance needed to secure Teresa’s need and protect alimony | Modified: life-insurance requirement terminates in 2025 (court declined to obligate continued coverage without reliable cost evidence) |
| Trial attorney fees ($8,637 to Teresa) | Challenged | Teresa seeks fees due to lower earning capacity and depletion of inherited funds | Affirmed: fee award within district court discretion given relative ability to pay and Teresa’s reduced resources |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 2016) (review standards and limits on applying external alimony guidelines)
- In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (discussion of guideline approaches to spousal support)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors for awarding alimony under Iowa Code § 598.21A)
- In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2005) (permitting life insurance to secure spousal support when need is shown)
- In re Marriage of Goodwin, 606 N.W.2d 315 (Iowa 2000) (attorney-fee awards depend on parties’ finances and ability to pay)