In Re the Marriage of Melissa M. Roetman and Gabriel D. Roetman Upon the Petition of Melissa M. Roetman, and Concerning Gabriel D. Roetman
17-0653
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Melissa and Gabriel lived together from 2009, bought a house in 2010, married in 2014, and had a daughter in 2014; Melissa filed for dissolution in April 2016 and trial occurred January 2017.
- Parties agreed on joint legal custody but disputed physical care: Melissa sought primary physical care and permission to relocate ~3.5 hours to be near her family; Gabriel sought joint physical care.
- Melissa had been the child’s primary caregiver since birth; Gabriel’s involvement increased after separation but had been limited earlier.
- Melissa’s employment was uncertain due to sale of her employer; she had substantial family support at the relocation site, none near the marital home.
- District court awarded Melissa physical care, permitted relocation, granted Gabriel liberal visitation, and included full premarital property values in the marital estate, directing Gabriel to pay $64,963.47 to equalize.
- Gabriel appealed placement and the inclusion of premarital property in the property division; the appellate court reviewed de novo but gave weight to district-court credibility findings and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Melissa's Argument | Gabriel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child should be placed in joint physical care or in Melissa's physical care with relocation | Grant Melissa physical care and allow move; move is for legitimate reasons and keeps primary caregiver with child | Award joint physical care to avoid relocating child and to preserve father’s access | Affirmed: Melissa awarded physical care and permitted to relocate; liberal visitation to Gabriel; relocation in child’s best interest |
| Whether premarital assets (house, vehicle, tools) should be excluded from divisible estate | Include full values in equitable division because premarital status is only one factor and Melissa contributed to household expenses and marriage economy | Exclude or credit premarital contributions (argues substantial premarital equity in house and tools) | Affirmed: Court properly considered premarital property as part of divisible estate and reached an equitable distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for dissolution appeals is de novo with deference to credibility findings)
- In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (best-interest focus in custody and relocation disputes; motive to frustrate access must be shown)
- In re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2005) (trial court has broad latitude in equitable property division)
- In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (premarital property is a factor, not automatically excluded from divisible estate)
- In re Marriage of Winter, 233 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1975) (factors guiding physical-care determinations)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (relevance of statutory and nonstatutory factors in determining joint physical care)
- In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 1999) (objective of custody to place child where most likely to reach healthy maturity)
- In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006) (premarital assets are not automatically awarded to the premarital owner)