In re the Marriage of Johnsen
20-0779
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Parties married in 2010, two children (2010 and 2016); dissolution filed 2018, trial 2019, decree 2020 with post‑trial modifications.
- District court awarded joint legal custody, physical care to Katie, and visitation to Matt; temporary orders had a 4‑hour right of first refusal and alcohol restriction, but final decree used a 24‑hour ROFR and no alcohol ban.
- Major marital assets include the homestead, a partially completed hoop building, and a livestock business (Jumper Cattle) with substantial related debt.
- Dispute over valuation/treatment of the hoop building and the allocation of Jumper Cattle assets and debts; Katie argued the property division was inequitable and sought sale of the homestead or larger equalization payment.
- Katie also asked the court to prohibit alcohol use during parenting time, shorten the ROFR to four hours, and reduce Matt’s visitation; Matt cross‑appealed seeking joint physical care.
Issues
| Issue | Katie's Argument | Matt's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation/treatment of hoop building | Broker opinion valued completed building at $90,000; Katie disputes post‑trial reallocation | Matt testified $60,000 of value already reflected in Jumper Cattle receivables; $30,000 remains separate | Court agreed $60,000 is in Jumper Cattle; $30,000 is separate marital asset |
| Overall property division / equalization | Division left Katie with far lower net worth; court miscounted debt and should equalize (or sell homestead) | Matt received most assets and debt; district court concerned about his debt burden and bankruptcy risk | Appellate court recalculated, awarded all Jumper Cattle assets/debts to Matt, affirmed homestead to Matt, and ordered Matt pay Katie $74,000 within 90 days to approximate equalization |
| Alcohol prohibition during parenting time | Katie sought express ban on consuming alcohol while caring for children | Matt pointed to evaluation finding low probability of substance use disorder; district court found no demonstrated adverse effect on children | Denied—court refused to impose a parental alcohol ban but emphasized parental duty to children’s welfare |
| Right of first refusal (ROFR) duration | Katie sought ROFR to trigger after 4 hours away from children | Matt said livestock chores can exceed 4 hours and he would rely on grandmother; short period would cause more conflict | Denied—court kept 24‑hour ROFR to avoid increased conflict and practical problems |
| Joint physical care | Katie opposed joint physical care; asked for reduced visitation | Matt argued parties successfully co‑parent and should have joint physical care | Denied—court found lack of communication, mutual respect, and ongoing discord; awarded physical care to Katie |
| Visitation schedule (midweek overnight) | Katie asked to reduce weekday overnights (challenged addition of Wednesday overnight) | Matt is active parent; visitation is in children’s best interests and not disruptive | Denied—appellate court affirmed visitation schedule including the Wednesday overnight |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (de novo review, weight given to trial court credibility; equitable distribution principles)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors for property division and joint physical care considerations)
- In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2013) (equal or nearly equal division often appropriate)
- In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006) (allocation of marital debt may inhere in property division)
- In re Marriage of Johnson, 299 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 1980) (one spouse may be assigned entire debt if overall division is equitable)
- In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (liberal visitation generally in children’s best interests)