*1 All Liberty such a result here. Mutual found withstand defendant will verdict a extraordinary receipt evi mail re- on the challenge is substantial based there tending employed by party cording system who in the record dence York, N.W.2d No charge. v. notice. Id. at 858. State was to receive 1977). (Iowa evi present Substantial case. appear similar facts con as could such evidence dence means properly admitted We find trial trier of fact that a rational vince make evidence of defendant’s failure to charged crime guilty is defendant Fur- required pretrial release contacts. doubt. v. beyond a reasonable State ther, defendant we find sufficient evidence Robinson, N.W.2d at 339. sentencing hearing. received notice of his Hamilton, 309 N.W.2d v. State Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convic- 1981). (Iowa failing appear. tion defen here is whether issue AFFIRMED. of his attorney defendant notice sent dant’s mailing in sentencing hearing. Proof upon proof of defendant’s
this case rests sending notices
lawyer’s practice in such actual no witness testified
because of notice to deposit
recollection as to Liberty Mut. mail.
defendant See Co., 353 Caterpillar Tractor v.
Ins. Co. Evidence In re the MARRIAGE OF C. practice is relevant or routine habit MISOL and Sinesio Misol. organiza a or person prove the conduct in con particular was Misol, tion a occasion on Upon of Maria the Petition C. practice. habit or routine formity with the Petitioner-Appellant, Iowa R.Evid. 406. Concerning And attorney testified that Defendant's Misol, Respondent-Appellee. Sinesio his practice of office to it is the routine re immediately mail orders photocopy and No. 88-233. clients. He further testified his
ceived to Appeals of Iowa. Court of secretary routinely places initials signify orders to the date such 1989. June ap copy. out a Such notation mailed sentencing order.
peared on defendant's practice presumption raises a that
Proof of ques done on the occasion act was Mutual, 353 N.W.2d at Liberty
tion here. testimony attorney’s
858. Defendant’s practice. office See
sufficient to establish Blaricome, v. Finance Co. Van
Public (Iowa 1982). The State that defen
presented sufficient evidence copy of the sen attorney mailed a
dant’s
tencing order to defendant. he did not receive
Defendant contends presumption and therefore the
the notice relies on
mailing dispelled. Defendant' Mutual, at 859. We
Liberty
find not hold that Liberty Mutual does piece
mere of failure to receive a evidence presumption mailing dispels
of mail *2 Hyland Hyland,
Tom Laden & Pear- son, P.C., Moines, petitioner-appel- Des lant. Figenshaw Bradshaw,
Michael H. Fowler, Moines, Fairgrave, Proctor & Des respondent-appellee. HABHAB, Judge. appeals provisions
Maria Misol the dissolution decree entered the dis- argues 1) trict court. She inequitable, award is as is the amount or- 2) support; dered for child Dr. Misol should be ordered to for the children’s education; 3) she should be awarded appellate attorney fees. parties twenty-two were married for
years. They Adrian, four children: 6,1966; Carmen, born June born December 13, 1968; Elizabeth, born November 1970; Helen, born December 1976. Adrian and presently Carmen attend col- lege. orthopedic surgeon. Sinesio is an gross earnings His approxi- 1986 were $330,000. mately degree Maria has a journalism. She has not worked outside marriage except for occasional work political campaigns periodic work in a University lab at the of Iowa. She has no present plans to return to the work force. scope Our of review is de novo. R.App.P. give weight Iowa 4. We to the findings court, fact of the trial especially considering credibility when of witness es, but by we are not bound Iowa 14(f)(7). R.App.P. Prior cases have little value, precedential and we must our base decision primarily particular on the circum parties stances of in this case. Nearly Weidner, repre- one-half of amount this Marriage of percent sented a 50 share Sinesio’s profit sharing Sep- trust account. As of to her in argues the award made *3 1987, 14, percent tember 50 share Maria’s alimony inadequate. of She the form $363,328. was valued at $5,700 monthly requires she to testified remaining The assets to Maria provide for and children. The herself the represent in a net total value excess of $3,500 monthly district court awarded $336,000 home and included a valued at per per age under the month child $600 and $160,000 (with $29,000); mortgage a of support. Two children eighteen in child of goods paintings household at valued support for at trial time. qualified child $22,260; shares 800 of Rubbermaid stock $4,500 trial, receiving Prior to Maria $24,000; savings in a valued at a account support from Sinesio. per temporary month $58,450; Spanish exempt a bank worth tax “alimony” generally The term $26,500; pieces property bond worth two of spousal for means an allowance $35,000; Spain jewelry in worth valued at distinguishable property from divi and is $11,000; more than an automobile valued 659, 651, Brin, v. 240 37 Brin Iowa sion. $12,800; at and two individual retirement (1949). It is an allowance N.W.2d 262 accounts, stock, other and another automo- obligation the spouse legal in lieu of to the having Misol bile. Dr. was awarded assets Hitchcock, Marriage In re of nearly same value. the total (Iowa 1981). It is 437 Wayne Stevenson, the Certified Public right. Marriage In an absolute re of performs accounting the Accountant who (Iowa 1975). Maskel, 225 N.W.2d profit sharing trust, work for the outlined Moreover, it the once entered survives mar options pursue several which Maria could riage. supreme As the court stated: of profit sharing with her one-half the trust alimony, the When court awards how- immediately can account. She withdraw ever, wipe it refuses clean marital account, of her entire share calculated instead, determines, The slate. $373,800. After of a payment at taxes and continuing support a obli- husband has withdrawal, early penalty for she would gation parties lots of the are to invest, $205,000 capital left a sum together. this extent still bound The which, percent, pro- at 10 invested would obligation may vary reach of that with $1,700 in per duce income excess of month parties, but the the financial fates produce of percent and at 9 income it obligation has created and sur- been $1,537 per month. marriage. vives alternative, could In the she withdraw Carlson, 338 N.W.2d Marriage of $181,000 immediately, from the account (Iowa 1983). 136, 140 giving her a net sum of to invest. adequacy alimony The of award remaining The in her share of the balance Maria in a ed to cannot be considered vac account, Stevenson, according Mr. uum, separate other considera $1,000,000 by grow approximately Instead, must look to the tions. we also fifty-nine, age time reaches at which Maria property “Property division. result time she could make withdrawals from alimony must be considered division incurring early an account without with- evaluating together their individual suf $100,- Meanwhile, the net penalty. drawal nor ficiency. They are neither made sub of her withdrawal would available from one an ject to evaluation isolation production of addi- to invest Griffin, other.” re or to she fit. As tional income use as sees (Iowa App.1984); In re entire option, a third Maria could leave her McFarland, untouched. she one-half of the account (Iowa 1976). age fifty- course, pursued this at the Stevenson, nine, according to Mr. awarded to Maria assets $700,000. million available a would have almost $1.9 amount to net total excess of penal- possess Those who skills incurring without well. valuable for her withdrawal recompensed by society for the ef- are ties. they put imposition forth. The forts tables show with the Mr. Stevenson’s diminishes the incen- an onerous burden to Maria from income available productive individuals tive otherwise $3,500 per support, based and child spend energy time useful per per alimony and $500 month pursuits. an Whether individual is support plus per month $693 month in child neurosurgeon high-paid profes- or in a from the stock and bonds received income sion, enjoy he is entitled to the rewards settlement, property but part of his labors. impact *4 any consideration of the of without Thus, in the we conclude instant case sharing plan, monthly Maria’s profit the inequity that there was no in the trial $5,193 ($4,469 after tax- income would be petitioner court’s determination that the es). sufficient funds from she withdrew $48,000per year perma- in should receive sharing plan give pension profit and to the alimony, if nent even that leaves the $100,000 her an additional to invest immedi- respondent surplus considerably above ately, monthly income after taxes $48,000 per year for his own use. $5,002. If her en- would be she withdrew We determine the amount of profit sharing plan imme- tire share of the by the trial court to be sufficient. diately percent, and it at 10 invested $6,906 monthly receive income of Maria also contends the amount of child taxes, $5,527 Thus, further, support inadequate before or after taxes. is and that Si- by withdrawing profit pay her share the nesio should be ordered to for the of it, college investing children’s educations. Sinesio coun- sharing plan com- by arguing ters children have accumu- bining alimony, that income with her child lated sufficient funds to to be able afford support, and the income from her other college right. in their own The children (but touching any investable assets without following have the amounts held in their underlying principal), Maria could names: anticipate reasonably an annual income of $109,225 Adrian taxes, $66,331 nearly before after 87,340 87,545 87,676 Carmen taxes. Elizabeth Helen in Marriage As we stated In re of (Iowa Hayne, App. 334 N.W.2d 351 An college expenses award of is 1983): clearly discretionary required and is not equitable principles The that have we Vrban, Marriage all cases. In re recognized and past enforced re- (Iowa 1980). If the child cases, quire, in dissolution that self-sustaining, clearly is as these four chil spouse earning capacity with the lesser is are, support college expenses dren towards supported, entitled to be for a reasonable mandatory. is not See In re time, closely resembling in a manner as Hoak, (Iowa 1985) existing during the standards the mar- (Where support payments were ordered riage possible, to the as extent that that day terminated the first after the child possible destroying right is without eighteen years age, reaches unless the providing party the income to en- graduated high child has not school joy comparable at least a standard of any and is a full-time student. event living dependent But as well. once the support was to terminate after the child assured, spouse’s living standard of is age Support payments reached nineteen. reason, in equity, there is no for the any to were also terminate on month fol supporting spouse provide to still more. child, lowing the death of the the child’s contrary, public On as a matter of marriage, or the date the child is otherwise policy, we that it emancipated. supreme believe is not desirable considered The so; to provided, support pro do and we are convinced also that further “no approach beyond such an inequitable would be vided this time since the custodial occurred, the chil- dissolution had not had a to previously referred property [that sup- have continued to be for their dren would $360,000] can used be value of parents, gifted ported by their beyond period.”). this support would not have been used for assets in the presently find these amounts We parents an obli- their gifts Misol children to be possession gation support their children which is towards to be used by their father intended gifts mitigated by to the children not We further determine higher education. prior to the divorce. income therefrom funds and the that the chil assessing must considered apply I not see reason do Lieber needs. support prior dren’s Hoak rule above App. man, legisla- apply it after 18. The the record we we review When ture has decreed the children attend col- the children have agree the trial court parents with lege age until the divorced college funds to own sufficient I obligation have an accordingly affirm the dis expenses. We ex- apply the Hoak rule affirm regard. We also this trict court penses. *5 of child court’s award
the trial when the chil- The focus then becomes finally argues should created, purpose its dren’s fund was was necessary ap college all reasonable expenses. provide for the children’s Attorney fees and costs. pellate attorney was, testified testified it and Maria Sinesio right, rest matter of but fees not a are did address it was not. The trial court not par discretion and issue, superior the court’s within do so we not its re positions. In credibility. ties’ financial vantage point determine (Iowa App. Kern, 408 N.W.2d lacking I find that the evidence would peti 1987). directing how much Without contemporaneous Sine- as intent. charge, may we order attorneys tioner’s self-serving testimony sio’s trial appel of Maria’s respondent pay was to I believe the intent persuasive. attorney and costs. late fees primar- parents advantages tax provide the AFFIRMED. ily secondarily give the children funds I adult life. no evidence that to start see Judges except All concur gift giving contemporary with OXBÉRGER, C.J., dissents. who to be used col- parents intended it lege. (dissenting). OXBERGER, Judge Chief
I I concur with all two-thirds respectfully require dissent. I Sinesio except issue I majority expenses. decision limit majority regarding college expenses. The of an Iowa resi- expenses to the cost those self-sustaining, public universi- “If the child is one of the states: dent to attend are, board, room, support to- these four children should be clearly ties. Those costs mandatory.” college expenses is not children should wards tuition books. Hoak, attend, re choice as what school See In have the provided above those expenses but above be borne should Hoak, not address the the court did Mrs. Hoak college expense issue because The court did ad-
did not raise the issue. self-sustaining of whether
dress the issue dur-
children should receive page
ing minority. At said:
N.W.2d the Hoak court position financial should
The children’s par- simply because their
not be altered marriage.
ents have dissolved their