Pedro Pelayo v. Bertha Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855

Background

Pedro and Bertha Pelayo were married in 1984 in Mexico and had three children, one of whom, A.P., was a minor at divorce.
The couple acquired three properties: Airport Road Property (primary residence), Fort Hall Property, and a Mexico property; the Airport Road Property was Bertha’s residence pending sale.
June 18, 2009: Pedro filed for divorce; Bertha counterclaimed alleging adultery; parties entered a stipulation allocating custody and property and setting payments related to the properties.
May 18, 2010: Magistrate issued Memorandum Decision and Judgment awarding Bertha Mexico Property, child support, spousal maintenance ($800/mo for 7 years, then $400/mo until Bertha is 62), and partial attorney fees; Pedro appealed.
District court affirmed most rulings but reversed on disposition of the Mexico Property; Pedro appealed further to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Key issues on appeal: spousal maintenance validity and amount, Pedro’s income for child support, attorney fees, and related appellate fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly affirmed the spousal maintenance award.	Pelayo contends the award was improper due to Bertha’s ability to self-support and because fault/adultery was improperly considered.	Pelayo argues the judge acted within discretion, considering Bertha’s need, marriage duration, and other statutory factors.	The maintenance award affirmed; court found no abuse of discretion and proper consideration of I.C. § 32-705 factors.
Whether Pedro’s alleged adultery may be considered in spousal maintenance.	Pelayo asserts fault should not influence maintenance when divorce is for irreconcilable differences and argues fault evidence was not clear and convincing.	Bertha maintains fault is a permissible factor under § 32-705 and that evidence supported the award.	Fault is a permissible factor; adulterous conduct may be considered, but its presence did not invalidate the award.
Whether the spousal maintenance award duration/amount was punitive rather than rehabilitative.	Pelayo claims thirteen-year duration is punitive; argues Bertha should seek employment without persistent support.	Bertha contends the award addresses income disparity, age, and employability to maintain standard of living.	Not punitive; evidence supporting duration and amount under § 32-705(2) was substantial and appropriate.
Whether the district court erred in applying Pedro’s income for child support at the level used.	Pelayo asserts overtime income was voluntary and should be excluded under I.C.S.G. § 6(a)(1)(ii).	Bertha argues overtime may be considered if not voluntary or if other criteria are met; evidence supported the court’s figure.	Harmless error; the record supported the income level used, and the ultimate child support calculation remained within substantial rights.
Whether the magistrate court properly awarded Bertha attorney fees under I.C. § 32-704(3) and the district court affirmed.	Pelayo contends there were insufficient findings tying the award to statutory factors.	Bertha argues the court properly weighed financial disparity and relevant § 32-705 factors; Jensen cited.	District court affirmed; the magistrate court properly considered § 32-705 factors and awarded fees.
Whether Bertha is entitled to attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121.	Pelayo seeks fees arguing frivolous appeal by Bertha’s counsel.	Bertha seeks fees based on frivolous appeal by Pedro.	Bertha awarded attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121.

Key Cases Cited

Tisdale v. Tisdale, 127 Idaho 331 (Ct. App. 1995) (fault as factor in maintenance, not mandatory prerequisite)
Stewart v. Stewart, 152 P.3d 544 (Idaho 2007) (provides framework for duration and reasonableness of maintenance)
Jensen v. Jensen, 917 P.2d 757 (Idaho 1996) (requirement to consider § 32-705 factors in attorney-fee awards)
Noble v. Fisher, 894 P.2d 124 (Idaho 1995) (attorney-fee award standards and factor-based analysis)
Brammer v. Brammer, 471 P.2d 58 (Idaho 1970) (very clear and convincing standard for adultery as grounds for divorce)
Wilson v. Wilson, 960 P.2d 1262 (Idaho 1998) (maintenance considerations and standard of living after divorce)
Bailey v. Bailey, 284 P.3d 970 (Idaho 2012) (review framework for appellate decisions in family cases)
Losser v. Bradstreet, 183 P.3d 758 (Idaho 2008) (appeals review—district court as appellate entity; focus on substantial evidence)