*1 that, jurisdiction accordingly, We conclude Iowa has case, and Eilermann domiciled in- to tax the interest a decedent impose an jurisdiction this state has foreign he real estate which state interest this upon a decedent’s tax heritance prior to death. The had contracted to sell outside real situated sale of per- judgment must intangible being (the same the state hereby the decedent property) when sonal in this state at the
domiciled Affirmed. v. rel. Hilton ex State death.” See also 155, Court, N.W. Minn. Probate All concur. Justices great attracted a
A matter which has and in this
deal attention in cases applicability of the doctrine
appeal is the states hold equitable Some conversion. equitable
the doctrine of conversion applied tax
not succession cases Lorena Dodd In re the OF MARRIAGE They will reason doctrine kind. Williams. and Elmer WILLIAMS justify vendor’s interest taxation of the foreign nor a nonresident’s real estate Upon Dodd the Petition of Lorena interest in local real estate. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, Concerning equitable cases conver- discussing Most WILLIAMS, Respondent. Elmer arisen on to those sion have facts converse No. 55181. presented appear here. Few cases realty foreign is in state with Supreme of Iowa. Court attempt- the vendor domiciled in the state 29, June ing levy tax. succession Common- levy ly, attempts cases deal foreign deceased vendor’s interest example re
in local real estate. See Estate,
Ryan’s
(N.D.1960).
We
table conversion in order to concur in the of the trial court. The con-
determination presented de- might
verse situation such
mand a determination. See 85 C.J.S. page et
Taxation 1115 and §§ Inheritance, Etc.,
seq. Am.Jur.2d, and 42
Taxes, page section states is not material two personal proper
might intangible both tax
ty. This has been authorized since the U. Supreme held is no
S. Court “there consti immunity from
tutional rule of taxation
intangibles by more than one State.” State Aldrich,
Tax Commission Utah 1358, 139 86 L.Ed.
U.S. S.Ct.
A.L.R. 1436.
341 *2 propositions
first moot and and third were pursue them as a he did not basis propositions related versal. These appointment attorney rep- court’s an resent the minor children of the respondent’s contention the court erred *3 granting custody 11-year-old of their daughter petitioner. to the Hence, only propositions those which portion deal with that of the order- decree ing alimony support payments by re- spondent remain for consideration. These closely assignments are Perhaps related. will tend to a better understanding of the problem respondent’s proposition if fourth is considered first. proposition
This is directed to the trial enlarge court’s failure to amend and its Pattie, George W. Hinshaw Hinshaw findings modify and to the decree accord- Marshalltown, King, & P. Irish James ingly. entry After decree of disso- Skinner, Altoona, appel- of Irish & for lution, defendant asking filed motion lant. court to findings include its a determi- petitioner nation of whether had committed Fairall, Loyal Fairall, Fairall S. & adultery acts respon- while married to Marshalltown, appellee. for dent, dating had been a named individual during this period and had re- written and Judge. MASON, person ceived letters from the with whom inferentially she was accused of commit- Williams, respondent, appeals Elmer ting adultery. The motion also covered from decree entered dissolution of mar- question petitioner’s impeachment. proceedings riage brought provi- under the chapter sions of The trial court denied the motion on the what is now comply that if it basis were to with the re- quest, necessary it would be in fairness to pointed opinions As out earlier of this petitioner findings enlarge to also court, Sixty- Second Session of respondent’s part detail misconduct Assembly chapter third 1266 re- General any testimony by respondent deemed pealed the divorce and enact- Iowa statutes by the court to In be untrue. its order marriage procedure ed a dissolution of court made this statement: which July became effective 1970. The lay “The did determine that fault revised statute makes the breakdown of the both'parties, although perhaps more basis for termination of with sole upon relationship heavily petitioner than the marital eliminates the respondent and some con- specific categories grounds did accord fault of fault enu- * * *, 598.8, Code, 1966, merated in sideration in determination of section its alimony, property divi- granting as a standard for dissolution. sion.” Respondent in argu- written brief and respondent assignment assigned propositions
ment his four relied on In second However, and ali- argument property for reversal. in oral i contends court, equita- support payments are not mony before this counsel conceded awarding spouses given ac- is to take into does not the award ble since settlement, support payments alimony or for the petitioner’s fault count statute. under the this connection revised breakdown. 598, The chapter although
argues impression This is matter of first seem, effect, Code, 1971, would jurisdic- courts of other this court. The fault as basis the element of move adopted no-fault tions divorce marriage, nothing in dissolution precise not considered the statutes have the court’s considera- removes from statute problem so far as our research discloses. spouses partic- tion the conduct party 598.14, Code, 1966, as a criteri- guilty pro- ularly that of Section equitable disposition determining on in vided : property. changes. “Alimony custody of children — — *4 may decreed, is court a divorce the position When support I. of children, in to the Schantz, make such order relation 163 on N.W.2d relies Schantz v. property, parties, and the maintenance of which was decided (Iowa 1968), 405 parties be right. the on the fault shall were based
at a divorces 598.8, The grounds in section enumerated may by it “Subsequent changes be made Code, opinion The forth several sets respects ren- in when circumstances these suggested aid factors courts expedient.” (emphasis supplied) der them rights the adjusting obligations the of parties upon judicial the repealed by chap- termination of The above section was marriage 598.21, relationship. cit. N.W. Loe. ter and section The be listing pro- 2d at Before the factors It enacted lieu thereof. evaluated, gave the court this caveat: vides : “Alimony custody changes. of repeatedly has the “This court taken — children — decreed, marriage is When a dissolution of
position resolving that the troublesome may the court make such order in relation problem alimony and awarding inherent in children, property, parties, and the effecting property rights, a distribution jus- parties as maintenance of the shall be many must be considered. See factors Gerk, Iowa, Gerk tified. citations. changes may “Subsequent made be respects the court these when circum- following general of the
“Use formula expedient.” (empha- them stances render helpful may arriving be an equitable supplied) sis or property determination financial obligations parties to a change only significant made The action, though divorce each element is “justi- is revision substitution of word present important.” always or (emphasis “right.” fied” for word supplied) 598.17, language section This court then proceeds to set five forth Code, 1971, new: premarital postmarital criteria and ten cri- teria repeated which will not A be here. “Dissolution of —evidence. marriage may dissolving decree be en- Fault was never the sole for an criterion tered court is from the when the satisfied or property or allow- award an presented evidence that has been a there pre- ance of or under our marriage relationship breakdown of True, vious statute. did enter into legitimate objects the' the extent along determination with other factors. destroyed matrimony been and there presented by no appeal issue remains reasonable likelihood what, any, preserved. if can fault of the consideration Concept: Stage the Final shall, upon competent Is This based “The Divorce?, Dame Notre evidence, pro- Evolution decree such and relevant (1972). Law. assets of the of the the division vide for or support mainte- reasonable parties and paragraph The first section 598.17 children either any dependent nance the marriage breakdown of relation- makes spouse. ship sole basis termination marriage. pe- The decree neither favors a granted due to marriage dissolution “No against respondent. titioner nor spouses one illness of the mental only upon acts the status of the obli- spouse other relieve the shall another with relation to one and consists a result of gation imposed by law’ as judgment granting of a of dissolution mentally ill support of the marriage for the marriage. may make an order spouse, the court support.” for such paragraph of di- The second this section par- rects that assets the division Study Laws Originally, the Divorce ties, support or either maintenance of report in its said that of Iowa Committee spouse competent rele- be “based permitted deter- all evidence specifically vant evidence.” It does not The committee mining marital breakdown. prohibit This the use of evidence. of evi- specifically mentioned certain kinds interpreted leaving might logically be included in the dence which were *5 flexibility the court some cas- individual of adul- “1. Commission scope review: proper arriving adjustment es in at a reason- tery; 2. desertion without Willful obligations the of the years; period a of two 3. cause for able upon marriage. termination judicial of the marriage; the felony of a after Conviction alcoholism; 5. Inhuman treat- Chronic petition The of the contents dissolu- affecting physical mental well- ment or specifically tion of are set out illness a being; 6. Incurable mental Code, 598.5, of section subparagraph 7 period years three immedi- continuous 1971,in this manner: action, ately the the re- preceding filing of Allege there break- “7. that been a has institution, home, quiring confinement to an marriage relationship down of the the facility the other and based testi- legitimate objects extent that matri- mony qualified a of the member medical mony destroyed been and there have profession spouse incurably that such mains no reasonable likelihood ill; mentally Pregnancy wife preserved.” can be marriage, by time of the unknown husband, by person a other than hus- intro- statute does allow for the ; voluntarily 8. That the spouses band have grounds petition. duction of fault entirely separate years lived for three next preceding of the ac- provide commencement Since the does not statute tion; specific an illegiti- guidelines, 9. The existence of we turn to the efforts spous- legal mate child or one children of in this writers field who have es, living, then which was unknown to the commented on similar dissolution no-fault spouse at the marriage.” jurisdictions other statutes enacted other as an Peters, Marriage construing Iowa Reform of Termi- aid in our statute. In addition 211, nation, cited, Drake 20 215-216. The to those already L.Rev. we examined: however, legislature, Clark, Policy declined to follow its Divorce and Divorce Re- recommendation, instead, form, electing, Tenney, 42 elimi- 403 (1971); Colo.L.Rev. grounds. suggests Step, nate One writer Divorce Fault: The Next Without interpreted attempt to truly (1967); Comment, as an 46 24 17 U. Neb.L.Rev. purpose Hayes, effectuate the ap- of the modern (1969-1970); 1306 C.L.A.L.Rev. proach Note, to divorce. The No Parting Fault California Divorce Reform:
344 Sorrow, 660; Walker, finger-pointing would eliminate Sweeter A.B.A.J. and conflict. the bitterness
Beyond An of Pat- thus reduce Fault: Examination Response to Present terns Behavior found expressions These and other Laws, (1971). Divorce J.Fam.L. clear make it cited materials article, “The New California Divorce An disso overriding legislative purpose of the Law,” 1969, is of in- T. Winter Walter stand fault-based lution act is remove terest. marriages. for termination of ards Iowa, (Calif. California In addition to frequently has stated: This 4500-40); (Flor- Florida Civ.Code sections 61); Statutes, 6, chapter Idaho ida Title must any statute “The construction 32, Code) ; (chapter Michi- Title Idaho fairly sensibly and and must reasonable Comp.Laws Ann. section gan (Michigan ob- carrying out view made (N.J. Jersey (Supp.1971)); 552.6 New enacting legislature intention of vious (Supp.1972)) section 2A:34—2 Rev.Stat. Fulton, 162 N.W.2d it.” Janson chapter Virginia (W.Va.Code and West v. Iowa Isaacson (Iowa 1968). See also among are that have taken 48), states Commission, 183 N.W.2d State Tax steps governing to revise their state laws cited 1971) authorities (Iowa divorce. opinions. these California was first to make the respon- of law light of this statement move 1969followed Iowa Michi- prop- in his second noted dent’s concession gan in 1970. The Florida statute became chapter osition 1, 1971; February July effective Idaho seem, the ele- effect, to remove “would September and New Jersey, for dissolution basis of fault ment Virginia partially The West statute was be classified marriage” might well legislature. rewritten the 1969 an understatement. vary These statutes from state to state *6 for a Michigan's being concept
with Fault standard similar to the most the rela granting the dissolution of marital Iowa statute it the based definitely tionship format has been eliminated of its law for new the dissolution Code, procedure. They of The 1971. present chapter each problems interpretation of and administra- However, respondent’s argument the that tion. spouses particularly the conduct of criticizing In the enactments, various au- guilty party has not been that legal periodicals thors of to, the referred eq- in the determining a criterion moved as supra, agree most significant aspect the of disposition property of remains. uitable the new attempt law is the to eliminate the of He to the fourth factor directs attention notion guilt of fault or marital from mari- criteria, the “conduct of the post-marital tal dissolution proceedings, and to substi- spouses particularly guilty that the of tute the approach a marital-breakdown opinion. party”, as listed the Schantz in standard granting dissolution. Gener- opinion Decem- was decided The Schantz ally, they maintain the marital-breakdown of com- ber The author a case approach away hypocrisy does the “with of opinion 18 Drake ment on the Schantz approach, and, the importantly, fault more this makes observation: L.Rev. it can be used to limit the bitterness and Court, emotional stress with Supreme by specifical- associated the fault “The Iowa system.” 47 Notre ly listing Dame Law. at the criteria to be considered settlements, The place writer in another property in the awarding cited note expresses the view that the several tasks. It clarified accomplished hope legislatures approach emphasized the law as to factors what consideration, imony taken should will be into would be based upon need the relatively ability utilizing simple pay, a ‘check-list’that to as determined eco- greater be of benefit to the Bench spouses nomic status of the at the time of previously practice conjunction and Bar than the used marital termination. In together lumping ability of into few the pay, factors to the social status of in spouses It has reiterated lengthy also would important, per- sentences. also be controlling concepts striking haps even fashion the social and economic status spouses prior marriage of divorce awards should be Indeed, it co- may be more than length Iowa. considered. Evaluation impor- that the utilized Schantz incidence would important emphasize prevailing the criteria Iowa tant. This is in determining the legislature giving at a time when the relative need the spouses as well as reforming ability Iowa divorce their self-supporting.” consideration to become laws, including discarding the ‘fault’ con- court, pains such cept. taking fact, we find no dissent in the elements, reaffirm and the several reassert proposition sources examined from saying changes appears to be that such fault is not a factor to be considered party’s guilty con- the elimination of awarding property an allow from
duct from come consideration must of alimony ance the dissolution acts. under government. legislative branch is, only clarifying the law not then, pointed out, As our determination lawyers but the legisla- the Iowa also for legislative purpose enacting chapter origi- (emphasis tors state.” grounds 1266 was to eliminate as a nal) granting standard for dissolution a mar- riage by taking was arrived at into account foregoing clearly statement sets legislature circumstances which forth the circumstances which the Sec- adopted chapter 1266 (18 Drake L.Rev. Sixty-third As- ond Session of the General 305) and the fact that Di- portion of the repeal sembly considered the Iowa di- Study setting vorce Committee forth vorce statute and enactment of a dissolu- kinds of permitted evidence in deter- marriage procedure, tion chapter now mining marital rejected breakdown was adopting (20 the act 215— Drake L.Rev. at 216). purpose Unless the of this enact *7 history
ment legislative as determined from carry legis- In order to out this obvious report Study of the Divorce Com give object lative intent to and effect defeated, is to “guilty party” mittee be sought to accomplished, we not hold concept must be a discarded factor for only “guilty party” concept must providing consideration in an an award or eliminated but of alimony evidence of conduct support money. allowance of or parties place insofar as it tends author The of the in comment 17 U.C. marriage breakdown on either 1316-1317,expresses L.A.L.Rev. at the be- spouse in be rejected must also as a factor lief, “Alimony, ‘support,’ now called will be awarding property or an allow- settlement determined fairness rather than fault. alimony money. of support ance or Usual- Three factors must taken into account: ly spouses both a breakdown contribute to (a) the duration marriage, (b) of nec- the marital relations makes ability supported spouse engage essary an adjustment rights of their gainful in employment, (c) the eco- words, obligations. In other evidence parties.” nomic condition of the bearing on the fourth factor listed in n 7 Notre The writer of in postmarital note decision of criteria Schantz convinced, 972, appears Dame at Law. “Al- not admissible on this issue. were married quoted Petitioner
Nothing the statements together as February and lived legal periodicals with from the conflicts September 1970. and wife until husband set forth Schantz other criteria of years age of at time Schantz, Therefore, Petitioner at high a respondent was 48 and remaining trial and relating fac evidence to those graduate. At the time of specified opinion admissible school tors in that only parties had few assets minor competent. if otherwise consideration During the course financial liabilities. is fatal foregoing The determination virtually contributions no urged support contention respondent’s by them from outside were received proposition. his second and con- By virtue hard work sources. finances, of their management servative is also with proposition fourth His person- they to accumulate a had been able spouses is to be out fault of the merit since having market a reasonable al residence proper given awarding no consideration subject mortgage of $18,500 to a value of settlement, money. ty apartment consisting $2659; an house Respondent entitled to an amend was not having first floor units four two-bedroom find enlargement of the court’s ment or $33,500 sub- a market value reasonable ings respects urged in his motion. $24,017; a vacant lot ject mortgage a hav- $1000; Dodge automobile
valued $1875; ing a Chevrolet a market value Nevertheless, noted, $100; and shares of Nation- valued at overruling respondent’s motion al Home with reasonable Mobile stock findings enlarge the court's amend and had value market of $275. given some consider fault had been stated totaling $1394, a bank various other stocks alimony and its determination ation respondent’s carpenter account of $40 so. error to do property division. It was equipment valued at tools and maintenance furnishings goods Household $750. Having conclusion arrived at II. of trial were valued at At $1500. a factor to be considered that fault they to a bank the sum were indebted awarding property or an al- $700. chapter under lowance respon- proceed to consider we stipulation parties filed their written award was dent’s other contention that the toas most of these values. inequitable unjust since it
otherwise impossible finan- in an almost leaves him Hearing proceedings on the dissolution in- position mortgage cial of his view May Findings commenced debtedness. filed fact and of law were conclusions the decree of dissolution June duty equity it is in a de our being filed June examine the record novo review to whole adjudicate propo anew on those *8 Our examination record discloses provided properly presented, sitions issue petitioner job virtually has had no error, pre any, has been and if raised training employed and at time of trial was proceedings. in the served course part time a nurses’ aide at a rate of as $1.65 693, Cory, In re Estate of N.W.2d per earnings hour. her She estimated at given (Iowa 1971). weight While will approximately per week and the cost $25 findings of trial court this court will not babysitter their ten-year:old a abdicate its function as triers de novo on daughter 'Respondent, 480, skilled $10. appeal. Starkey, Baker 259 Iowa journeyman carpenter, capable of earn- mg in per excess of place hour. long $4.00 Tamela was in full-time he approximately earned as a car- attendance at an $9000 accredited college, univer- penter approximately and sity school, $8500 trade period of such at- tendance not to years exceed four gross apartment income from the event and should be following continuous building house per was per month $100 graduation school, high from peri- vacation rented unit and problem there had been no excepted. ods in keeping occupied. Respon- three units living dent was in the fourth unit. In ad- Occupancy personal residence of payment dition to of taxes parties and insurance was petitioner awarded to premiums, monthly payments being required $221 to maintain the principal required and same, taxes, interest were pay premiums insurance and mortgage property. on this principal The insurance payments and interest coming due premiums per year were taxes on the mortgage $150 on this residence. just were $800, few dollars less than in- Respondent was awarded
cluding the use and in- gutter the curb and tax. Tenants come apartment from the apartments building, house are furnished some utili- being required same, to maintain pay ties which run approximately per $87 taxes, premiums insurance mortgage month.
payments. personal Taxes on the residence where parties Use of the properties was petitioner insurance, resides are $404 payments to terminate at the same time as Monthly payments on this mort- $47.50. support money. Upon ter- gage were $84.84.
mination of the and maintenance use properties, Although the same were to be sold the health of both payment expenses, pro- and after seems to be affected their marital diffi- culties, peti- percent ceeds were to be appear there no divided 25 health or mental problems percent respondent. tioner which will interfere with their employment once the marital difficulties Provision was made for the distribution been resolved. All indications are proceeds of the net from the sale of these that their earnings will increase the fu- properties party in the event either ture. prior die to the termination date as fixed. The custody Williams, of Tamela Sue the vacant Petitioner was also awarded January pe-
born was awarded to automobile, lot, goods household Chevrolet noted, custody titioner. As her is not an personal belong- furnishings her issue appeal. on this ings personal residence. In its conclusions of law the trial court prop- all other Respondent was awarded provisions made detailed set- erty including his tools and maintenance tlement, alimony support money. pay equipment. required He note, by pe- expenses all incurred the bank Respondent pay was ordered to as alimo- 1, 1971, remaining September titioner after ny and for of their minor action, unpaid, toward costs of $1000 daughter per the sum of month com- $200 attorney and petitioner’s the fee of $100 mencing payments These June repre- attorney appointed to a fee for the were to cease when Tamela reached the proceedings. sent at the dissolution Tamela age died, of 18 or sooner married or be- *9 However, required came un- self-supporting. summary, respondent is termina- In tion of payments such to make was not to take the court’s decree der the terms of payments rights obligations on both cation of the and following annual
pieces relating until to the distribution of their real estate the termination just and $1204, taxes was fair. fixed insur- date therein: mortgage $197.50, loans ance and $3670. payments, As to we those believe de- utility an bill In addition there is estimated by striking the cree should modified premiums and insurance Taxes $1044. provision respondent requiring pay to $200 are, course, approximate figures. Add- per alimony support and month as for the support alimony ed to this amount are and in lieu de- of Tamela and that thereof the money payments per year. He is of $2400 provide pay- respondent monthly cree make this required pay thus To do to $8515.50. alimony ments of as with a further $100 approximately he has income $9000 support for sum Tamela. $100 carpenter as a rent of from and $3600 it fixes and decree 'insofar as the dates apartment assuming they re- three units payments conditions said are under which occupied. payments Subtracting main unchanged. to continue shall remain $12,600, respon- this required of from him dent left with the sum of is $4084.50. application III. makes for at- Petitioner Respondent given was stocks and bonds torney fees services rendered in this for approximately required and was $1675 attorney appeal. A certificate her $700, pay attorney fees to bank note of showing the serv- time 'involved for those and court costs. transcript ices with money advanced for petitioner’s filing is set forth in fees appreciate that leave does not We brief. money. the oth- with much On hand, petitioner er residence furnished a in addition Counsel was allowed $1000 daughter the taxes for herself and preliminary rendered fees for services paid respondent. being and insurance spent apparent he has the trial court. It is per has month to her- maintain She $200 appeal. great preparing this deal of time self and in addition to income child such also realize produce. she is able to We any way attempting Without under the terms decree place a on these or what valuation services during spondent cannot use the real estate paid, simply counsel should be we deter required any fi- period payments are portion paid mine what thereof should be nancial This has said transactions. by respondent. al Petitioner should be many times the old statute under divorce her attor lowed an additional toward $500 sup- enough money there seldom ney plus money fees advanced $133.90 port two these situations. families attorneys Any him. amount due her appears in same this case the is true. above this allowance must additional de novo review this record we our en paid by petitioner. Judgment shall be eliminated consideration tered in the court for such additional concept reached our determina- amount. tion on the of the criteria otherwise basis Schantz, N.
suggested in against respondent. Schantz Costs shall taxed respondent’s at 405 and conclude that W.2d inequitable Except respect an
contention the decree as modified with prop- alimony unjust to the division of allocation of amount related a definite support payments erty money and the al- additional herein, merit under circumstances lowances made the decree is af- without firmed. presented this record.
Except
monthly .payments
for the
matter is therefore —Affirmed
modify.
support money
adjudi-
remanded
with directions
*10
n 49
concur, except
62,
All
UHLEN-
N.W.
66. See also Riemenschneider v.
Justices
MOORE,
Riemenschneider,
HOPP, J.,
617,
who dissents and
239
C.
Iowa
30 N.W.2d
REYNOLDSON,
J.,
join
769, supp. op.
J.,
who
(such
join in this dissent. In re the MARRIAGE OF Esther Pauline HARRINGTON and Earl Frank- Harrington. lin REYNOLDSON, (dissenting Justice concurring but result). from division I Upon the Petition of Earl Franklin *12 HARRINGTON, Appellee, I filed by concur the dissent Justice doing In so I moti- UHLENHOPP. am Concerning, And by assigns only vated not the reasons he HARRINGTON, Appellant. Esther Pauline by dissenting but the conviction the No. 54850. opinion majority will in' create confusion Supreme Court cases, Iowa. trials numbering of dissolution now per approximately day. June likely judges some trial will con- strue this no decision to mean evidence might tend indicate fault for the
marriage breakdown will admissible consideration short, alimony. may be assumed
evidence of permitted. bad conduct is not hand,
On the other it is clear that evi- good Majori-
dence of conduct is invited.
ty eighth postmarital retains the and tenth laid
criteria down Schants. Note Iowa,
language Harrington, In re she filed date: “The fact happy marriage
contributed to a for ten
years both her labor and can- attention
not be denied under this record.” guidelines
No are established to assist typical
the bench and bar in the situation
in which the party only conduct of one can light viewed in reflected con-
duct of the other. Assume a husband who intoxicated,
returns home night, each
beat and humiliate his wife. she Assume saintly person
is a who an extraordinary preservation
sacrifice in the of the marital
relationship (Schants four), en- criterion years.
dures this for
How can the wife’s weighed conduct be
without reference to the husband’s con- If
duct? evidence of going his conduct is
to admissible purpose limited
showing a permitted fact situation to be
disclosed eight ten, Schants criteria
we say so now. If it is inadmissi-
ble for that purpose, opinion limited
should so state and admit criteria eight and
ten of Schants have also been emasculateA