In Re the Marriage of Marsha Kay Hiller and Steven Mark Nelsen Upon the Petition of Marsha Kay Hiller, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Steven Mark Nelsen, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee.
16-0997
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Marsha Hiller petitioned for dissolution in July 2015 asserting she and Steven Nelsen had a common-law marriage; they had cohabited from 1988 until August 2015 and have three children.
- The district court found a common-law marriage beginning July 1, 1998, divided assets/debts, and ordered Steven to pay $1,200/month alimony for 12 years.
- Steven appealed the finding of common-law marriage and the alimony award; Marsha cross-appealed economic rulings.
- Key factual evidence: Steven repeatedly represented Marsha as his wife to employers (beginning Nov. 24, 1993), changed beneficiaries listing her as “wife,” filed joint tax returns from 1998 onward, and exchanged letters/cards referring to Marsha as his wife.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, credited district-court credibility findings, and concluded the elements of common-law marriage were met as of November 24, 1993.
- The court modified the decree: marriage start date set to Nov. 24, 1993; alimony converted to traditional support of $1,200/month indefinitely until death or remarriage; adjusted property division (Steven to pay Marsha $16,000); awarded Marsha $5,000 appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hiller) | Defendant's Argument (Nelsen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence and start date of common-law marriage | Parties agreed and held themselves out as married; cohabitation from 1988 supports marriage beginning earlier than 1998 | No common-law marriage; inconsistencies in documents and some evidence of intent to marry ceremonially only | Common-law marriage exists; start date fixed at Nov. 24, 1993 based on consistent employer representations and holding out |
| Public declaration/holding out element | Steven repeatedly represented Marsha as his wife to employers, insurance, pension forms, tax filings, and in letters | Some documents listed single status or omitted marital status; argue inconsistencies undermine holding out | Holding out satisfied despite some inconsistent documents; substantial public representation supports marriage finding |
| Alimony amount and duration | Requested $1,880/month; argued need based on earning disparity and marital standard of living | Argued alimony unnecessary given Marsha’s earning capacity (~$30k–$40k) | $1,200/month is equitable given earning disparity; converted to traditional (indefinite) spousal support until death or remarriage |
| Property division (marital debt allocation) | Challenge to inclusion of speculative/future debts in Steven’s net worth | Court included certain prospective tax and medical/repair debts in calculations | Removed $32,000 of speculative debt from Steven’s net worth; modified division so Steven pays Marsha $16,000 to equalize property split |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Martin, 681 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 2004) (elements and analysis for common-law marriage and holding-out requirement)
- In re Marriage of Winegard, 278 N.W.2d 505 (Iowa 1979) (discussing common-law marriage standards)
- In re Marriage of Winegard, 257 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1977) (holding-out/public declaration cannot be secret)
- Gammelgaard v. Gammelgaard, 77 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 1956) (community reputation and conduct relevant to proving marital intent)
- In re Estate of Stodola, 519 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (common-law marriage terminates only by dissolution decree)
- Conklin by Johnston-Conklin v. MacMillian Oil Co., 557 N.W.2d 102 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (standard of proof for common-law claims when one party is deceased)
- In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (use of traditional alimony in long-term marriages)