In re the Marriage of Keller
21-0122
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- Jodie and Mark Keller married in 2002 and have five children; three were minors during the dissolution (M.E.K., M.A.K., J.Z.K.).
- After separation they initially shared joint physical care; by trial the older daughters had "chosen sides": M.E.K. lived with Mark, M.A.K. preferred Jodie, and J.Z.K. continued shared care.
- Mark owned a red snapper permit converted to an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) that he leased for significant income (historically ~$108k–$130k); the IFQ was treated as income-producing marital property in the dissolution.
- The district court split physical care, awarding each parent one daughter (unchallenged for M.E.K.), found the IFQ marital and divided it 50/50, ordered Mark to reimburse $20,000 from funds he moved, and imputed different incomes from the IFQ halves (Mark: $67,000; Jodie: $19,500).
- Using those income figures the court denied Mark spousal support, calculated child support (varying amounts as children aged), and ordered Jodie’s imputed annual income for child-support purposes at $92,175.
- On appeal Mark challenged physical care for M.A.K., child-support calculation, IFQ division, the $20,000 reimbursement, and the denial of spousal support; the court affirmed most financial rulings but modified the physical-care award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mark) | Defendant's Argument (Jodie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.A.K. should be in joint physical care (vs. award to Jodie) | Parents should have joint physical care of both younger children; no compelling reason to separate siblings | M.AK. prefers to live with Jodie and the district court’s split reflects children’s choices and best interests | Court reversed: no compelling reason shown to separate M.A.K. from sibling J.Z.K.; remanded to award joint physical care for both and recalculate support |
| Child support calculation and income imputation from IFQ | Court should treat IFQ income symmetrically (assign rental income to Jodie too) and not reduce Mark’s support credit | Jodie intends to sell her IFQ half; court may impute reasonable investment income from sale proceeds instead of lease income | Court upheld imputation: different, reasonable income figures for each party were proper (Jodie’s sale proceeds imputed at $19,500; Jodie’s imputed annual income for support matters $92,175); remand for support recalculation given physical-care change |
| Division of the IFQ (marital asset) | IFQ is primarily Mark’s asset and income source; he should receive it (or a larger share) given his role and historic use | IFQ is marital property producing passive lease income and is equitably divisible; Mark was not an owner-operator whose skills uniquely preserve asset value | Court affirmed 50/50 split: IFQ is marital property and division was equitable given Mark’s role was largely passive leasing rather than owner-operator |
| Reimbursement of joint account funds ($20,000) | Mark had right to IFQ earnings and funds he moved; contest the $20,000 repayment to Jodie | Court equitably allocated joint-account withdrawals and awarded credits; order reflected offsets | Court affirmed: after credits and offsets court did equity; Mark was not entitled to further relief |
| Spousal support denial | Mark sought $2,000/month; argues need given changed employment | Jodie argues Mark is self-sufficient with IFQ income and substantial asset share | Court affirmed denial: Mark is self-sufficient (IFQ income, assets over $1M) and denial does equity |
| Appellate attorney fees | Mark did not seek fees | Jodie requested fees after defending financial rulings on appeal | Court declined to award appellate fees: both parties are self-supporting and fees unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors for awarding joint physical care)
- Winter's Marriage, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (presumption that siblings should not be separated)
- In re Marriage of Smiley, 518 N.W.2d 376 (Iowa 1994) (need compelling reason to separate siblings)
- In re Marriage of Behn, 416 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (children’s preferences are a factor but not dispositive)
- In re Marriage of Callenius, 309 N.W.2d 510 (Iowa 1981) (permitting award of farm to one spouse where owner-operator status justifies it)
- In re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2005) (equitable division of marital property standard)
- Brennan v. Brennan, 425 P.3d 99 (Alaska 2018) (IFQ/quota creates property interest divisible in divorce)
- In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 1989) (standards for awarding spousal support)
- In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (discretionary award of appellate attorney fees)