In re the Marriage of Witherly
2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 286
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Brian (high earner, ~$158,000/yr at trial) and Maura (40s, largely out of workforce for ~17 years, working low‑hour job at separation) divorced in 2013 after a 17‑year marriage.
- District court awarded Maura $2,600/month spousal support labeled "rehabilitative" until age 65, remarriage, or death; ordered parties to cooperate in filing joint 2012 and 2013 tax returns.
- Brian appealed only the spousal support amount/duration; Maura cross‑appealed the joint‑filing tax requirement for 2012–2013.
- Trial court found substantial disparity in earning capacity, Maura’s education obsolete but capable of partial recovery with training, and that joint 2012 filing could save about $16,000.
- Court of appeals reviewed support de novo (with deference) and considered statutory factors in Iowa Code § 598.21A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization and scope of spousal support | Brian: Award improperly labeled "rehabilitative" and operates like permanent/traditional alimony; reduce amount/duration | Maura: Award justified by earning disparity and need to approximate marital lifestyle while retraining | Court: Labels not dispositive; award can blend rehabilitative and traditional purposes; upheld substance but modified amounts/duration |
| Amount and duration of spousal support | Brian: Reduce award amount and shorten duration | Maura: Needs assistance given 17‑yr absence from workforce and significant earning gap | Court: Modified award to $2,600/month for 5 years, then $1,300/month until age 65/remarriage/death — declining to shorten overall potential duration given disparity and retraining needs |
| Court authority to compel joint tax filing for 2012 | Brian: Joint filing would benefit both (saves ~$16,000) | Maura: Refused to file jointly (cited distrust, other personal reasons) | Court: District court may order cooperation on tax filings when tax consequences affect both; joint 2012 filing requirement affirmed |
| Joint tax filing for 2013 (post‑decree year) | Brian: (implicit) joint filing beneficial | Maura: Divorce finalized Nov 19, 2013, so cannot file jointly for 2013 | Court: Parties divorced before year end; cannot file jointly for 2013 — decree modified to remove joint‑filing requirement for 2013 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 2005) (standard of review: de novo with deference; disturb support only for failure to do equity)
- In re Marriage of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 2008) (spousal support may combine rehabilitative and traditional elements)
- In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (distinction between traditional and rehabilitative awards; statutory factors control)
- In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (affirming traditional alimony after long marriage)
- In re Marriage of Muelhaupt, 439 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1989) (neither party should have sole post‑separation control of tax filings that affect the other)
- In re Butler, 346 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa Ct.App. 1984) (discussed compulsion to file jointly; later addressed by other authority)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (appellate discretion on awarding attorney fees)
- In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) (purpose of traditional alimony is to approximate marital support level)