*1 284 The costs of this as modified. sufficiency. In We affirm
evaluating their individual against Ronald. 358, appeal are to be assessed Dahl, 418 N.W.2d Marriage re of Marriage (Iowa In re App.1987); of Grif- MODIFIED. AFFIRMED AS cir- All of these at 608. fin, 356 N.W.2d equitable an dis- point toward cumstances modify the trial court on and we
tribution
this issue. increase in alimo- asks for an
Laura also earning po- mainly slight on her
ny, based Laura compared as to Ronald’s. tential Tamara In re the MARRIAGE OF alimony may recognized that increased Swartz JENNINGS if of necessary a redistribution Jennings. L. a distri- did make such erty was made. We therefore we find bution Upon of Tamara Swartz the Petition be sufficient. Petitioner-Appellee, Jennings, were incor- Laura also claims debts concerning Kyle Jennings, L. on by the triаl court. Based rectly divided Respondent-Appellant. assets, many of distribution of the new moot and the complaints are now No. 89-897. Laura’s eq- of assets and debts overall division Appeals of Iowa. Court of uitаble. 22, Feb. 1990. im- the trial court also contends Laura 26, Feb. As Amended ex- to submit an properly allowed Ronald property. There concerning personal hibit suggest that in the record to
is no evidence im- personal property was
the division of had the unfairly decided. Laura
proper or as to present arguments her
opportunity to property should be
why personal certain division affirm the trial court’s
hers. We property. court’s challenges the trial
Finally, Laura attorney fees. Iowa award her
failure to considerable discretion
trial courts have Marriage
awarding attorney fees. In re of (Iowa App. Giles, 338 N.W.2d award, com
1983). To overturn the trial party must show
plaining discretion. Id. Awards abused its
court for fair and reason
attorney fees must be amounts, Willcox able (Iowa 1977), and
son, respective abilities to parties’ on
based Lattig, 318
pay. The court Laura to their
required Ronald and the substantial attorney fees. Given
own dispos at Laura’s now
amount Ronald, income of and the substantial
al holding. correct in its trial court was *2 Hudson,
Thomas T. Tarbox of Wimer & P.C., Moines, petitioner-appellee. for Des P.J., DONIELSON,
Considered HABHAB, SACKETT JJ. SACKETT, Judge. Kyle
Respondent-appellant Jennings L. appeals dissolving marriage a decree his petitioner-appellee Tamara Swartz Jen- (1) nings. Kyle contends by the trial court excessive and awarded is (2) long period time, a for too child (3) inequitable, award is (4) erty inequitable, attorney award fees should have been awarded. We affirm as modified. in June parties
The were married child, Margaret, May one born have married, Tamara held a they 1986. When B.A., certified in working was teach- disabilitiеs, ing learning held a full- teaching position public in a time school. undergraduate Iowa Kyle State was part-time. University employed and was State, he pur- from graduating After Iowa He sued a at Drake Law School. May graduated from Drake brought to the parties some assets Both par- marriage. During the both pursued education. Tamara ties additional public system and her taught in the school Kyle’s, who income exceeded earned primarily as a clerk. worked Drake Law paid tuition at parents when he School, except year, his final Drake Law served as Editor Chief resulting Review, full-tuition schol- substantial arship. couple The received family. While Ta- gifts cash from each earnings the cash Kyle’s, exceeded mara’s family those exceeded gifts from from Tamara’s contributions parties’ respective cash The were: Schnеider, Smith, M. Zurek of
Thomas Zurek, P.C., Mumford, Schrage
Stiles, & Moines, respondent-appellant.
Des
dissolution,
Dahl, 418 N.W.2d
riage
At the time of the
marriage. Nei-
in a Des
is a short-term
as an associate
This
earning
working
firm. Tamara was
made substantial
party
Moines law
ther
has
in the Woodward-
half-time as a teacher
more education
sacrifices.
obtained
*3
earning
and
about
Granger school district
period,
the
but his basic educational
$10,000
agreed, with her
annually.
It was
paid by
family.
his
Tamara
expenses were
$20,000
education,
expect to earn
she could
Kyle,
than
in
earned income
but
had more
in
Des
teaching
public school
the
for
at a
considering the additional monies
area.
Moines
marriage,
as the
brоught into the
as well
(in
family
addition to tuition
gifts from his
the assets of the
The trial court divided
financial contributions ex-
payments), his
following manner:
parties in the
Tamara and her
ceeded those of
experienced
gоod
a
stan-
parties
The
have
during Kyle’s law school
dard of
contribution,
years
of Tamara’s
because
contributions,
and
families’
their
employment.
part-time
primary
Tamara has also assumed
custo-
responsibility
parties’
the
child.
dial
in the future. Tamara
will do so
She
marriage
the
with substantial edu-
leaves
employment opportunities
good
and
cation
left Tamara with a
The trial court decree
currently has
in thе education field. She
$33,800
Kyle
and
with
net worth of
$20,000 annually. Kyle
ability to earn
the
$1,700 in
of assets.
obligation of
excess
edu-
the
with substantial
leaves
cation,
in
alimony
good employment opportunities
pay
to
Tamаra
was ordered
law,
years. Kyle
ability
three
the current
to
per month for
the field of
of $300
support of
pay
$35,000 annually.
$600
to
child
was ordered
earn
1,
1, 1989, May
to
per month from June
justify
do not
Kyle argues these factors
1, 1992,
to
from June
per month
$700
gives
Tamara all of the
an award
$1,000
1, 1995,
per month from
May
parties’ net worth and incumbers
on,
of two-thirds dur-
then
with a reduction
property
earnings
settle
future
starting in
ing
summer vacations
extended
the
аlimony. We assess
issue
ment and
carry
insurance
medical
applicable
the dictates of
cases. See
under
$125,000
policy on his
life insurance
and a
Francis, 442
Marriage
N.W.2d 59
In re
the child. He also
life for the bеnefit of
Janssen,
1989);
In re
any unin-
pay one-half of
was ordered to
(Iowa 1984);
Mar
N.W.2d 251
348
given
He was
the
expense.
health
sured
Horstmann,
sen, at 356 348 N.W.2d I. 612-13, property not a at and while N.W.2d the issue of right, can considered on alimony prop the Kyle contends division. Jans both inequitable. We consider erty are awards Horstmann, 253; sen, at together in property division alimony and at 891. sufficiency. N.W.2d assessing In re Mar- their by to courts in this state have been The made Tamara sacrifices guidelines required apply support in fix- consid Kyle’s advanced were ward ing suppоrt. child The decree this mat- sacrifices made to the erably less than the 8,May ter was entered 1989. Because Janssen, degrees in spouses’ advanced adopted the time guidelines were between Franсis, at N.W.2d the time the of this dissolution decree and Also, here accumulated parties 64-65. submission, case was transferred to us large part net worth in a nearly have the we do not benefit of the trial monetary contri because of substantial computation court’s of child under to a by Kyle’s parents and butions made guidelines. extent because of contributions lesser made parents. The contributions Tamara’s $10,000. Tamara has an annual income of *4 than suffi by Kyle’s parents were more $35,000. Kyle has an annual income of We ex pay cient to his educational necessary computations make the will (1989) 598.21(2) section penses. by Iowа Code arrive at net income as the defined gifted property guidelines. monthly or inherited Net income under the provides that guidelines gross monthly the means income recipient aside to the should be set inequitable less deductions for: it gift or inheritance unless circumstances, (1) we to do so. Under the Federal Income Tax inequitable it to set aside consider (2) State Income Tax family’s contribu amount which his (3) Security Social Deductions Tamara’s We tions exceed those of (4) Mandatory Pension Deductions assessing contributions in do consider these (5) Union Dues alimony her claim Tamara’s claim for (6) Dependent Health Insurance Cover- substantially receive more that she should age than because he received property (7) Health/Hospitalization Individual marriage. degree during the See also Coverage Expense or Mediсal Deduc- Thomas, 319 N.W.2d re In to exceed a month $25.00 tions not (Iowa 1982). 209, 211 items, pay- as credit union Other such support a the factors here We determine deductions, ments, savings charitable or alimony modification of the plans voluntary pension plans, thrift that agree with the trial court awards. We parent’s in- added back into a are to be marriage with Tamara should leave the come, the children must since the needs оf Kyle does. Because more assets than voluntary sav- higher priority have a than accomplish here that can there are assets ings payment or of indebtedness. purpose, we determine it is better thаt this time inequities with settle modify the decree to
erty. We therefore alimony award.
eliminate modify the decree to elimi- further
We Kyle pay that requirement
nate the $5,000,and to Tamara of
additional amount $2,500 legal toward her fees. proper- respects, we affirm
In all other Therefore, Tamara leave will
ty award. $33,800in marriage approximately with Kyle will leave the
property and They еach property. in will attorney fees. own
responsible for their
II. support the child
Kyle contends September high. Since
award is too support In purposes.
income for child See Mentel, 359 N.W.2d re (Iowa App.1984). We also strike that portion of the decree decreases summer visitation.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. P.J., DONIELSON, concurs. HABHAB, J., part concurs part. dissents in HABHAB, part, Judge (concurring dis- senting part). respectfully portion dissent from that
I majority opinion that eliminates the I find award to Tamara. would Tamara is entitled to reimbursement alimo- *5 per ny in the form of month for $300 thirty-six mоnths. See of (Iowa Francis, It during go that virtual- should not unnoticed dependent No are taken for deductions ly marriage Kyle a full-time the entire insur- health insurance or health University at Iowa State or student either because, although Kyle is ordered to ance ex- University. Drake While most child, insurance on the we do pay health paid penses education were not amount. have the parents, Supreme the Iowa Cоurt noted that “courts Iowa are not has reimbursing supporting spous- confined to solely expense of the advanced es for the purpose of reim- degree itself.” Id. The compensate alimony is to bursеment spouse supporting, nonstudent for both guidelines, In accordance with having standard of endured a lower monthly. support is to $431.46 reduced stu- in order that the spouse may further his or her edu- dent require equitable We сonsider it to being deprived and also for of a cation pay, to in addition to this Kyle to continue living in the future. better standard of See support, Margaret’s medical insurance and 488, 501, Mahoney, v. 91 N.J. Mahoney expenses covered and dental all medical (1982). Kyle’s vastly-in- A.2d requirement We strike the by insurance. ac- earning potential, creased which was $125,000 in life insurance carry that part through no quired in small Margaret. wages еarns payable Tamara, requires compensation to Ta- In withholding. the event subject to FICA majority greater mara to a than the death, security social benefits will allots. during her Margaret minori available Lovetinsky, 418 ty. See App.1987). portion of the decree strike
We sup automatically increases the child as future speculate cannot
port. We