*1 unequivocally applies employee to the entire
handbook. person think a reasonable read handbook could not believe that DLC provisions
has assented to be bound to the Smoot, See
contained in the manual. (finding employment at 1411 at will as a
F.2d “Although [employer’s] of law: termi
matter policies promises specific
nation contain situations, specific
treatment the written explicit
materials also contain disclaimers preclude forming an
that their the basis of Thus,
employment agreement.”). we hold sufficiently
DLC’s handbook is not definite to
constitute valid offer. Summary.
VI.
We hold as a matter of law no contract between
existed Anderson DLC. Therefore, employed
Anderson was at-will. correctly granted summary
the trial court
judgment to DLC.
AFFIRMED.
In re the OF Sarah MARRIAGE
H. GORDON
H. Gordon
Upon the Petition of Sarah Gordon, Appellee,
H. Concerning
And Thomas H.
Gordon, Appellant.
No. 94-1089. Appeals
Court of of Iowa.
Sept. 1995.
290
Linda Hansen Robbins of Irvine & Rob- bins, Rapids, appellee. Cedar for
CADY, Judge. appeal requires por- to decide if This us support, alimony prop- tions of the child erty provisions a for dissolution of of decree marriage equitable. were On our de novo review, we affirm the trial with modifi- cation. marriage
The between Thomas Sarah April 1994 when the Gordon ended on court entered a dissolution decree district following trial. Thomas and had a Sarah nearly and had been married for marriage At time the three children. ended, old, years Kristopher was Andrew old, years years and Nicholas was 6 was years age. Thomas both 36 and Sarah were old. En-
Thomas worked for the Duane Arnold Rapids. ergy plant near He earned Cedar $57,000 annually. worked around Sarah part-time as a teacher and coach. She held a education, physical bachelor’s decree planned pursue an advanced decree to earning capacity. enhance her She earned $12,000 year approximately prior in the the divorce. parties acquired numerous items of They during marriage. their $86,000.
owned a house valued at $20,000 during marriage, inherited over car, mostly purchase a which was used to radio, computer equipment, parcel ham and a of land next to the marital home. The ad- $1,100. joining lot cost granted primary care The trial court Sarah, children to with liberal visitation to monthly sup- In Thomas. addition to child $1,200, port payments of the court ordered Thomas to one-half of the costs of the per activities and children’s summer August purchas- child each to assist Sarah supplies clothes and school for the chil- dren. Thomas was also ordered to maintain children, and dental insurance on the health pay seventy percent and to of the unreim- Wertz, expenses. Thomas was allowed to Michael L. Mollman of Mollman & bursed dependents for in- Rapids, appellant. declare the children as Cedar portunities Rapids annual in the Cedar purposes, come tax unless Sarah’s school dis- $18,000. case, wages In that she if exceeded trict. He maintains Sarah worked full- youngest time, child would be entitled to claim the earnings her would double. exemption purposes. for tax Stipulation I. district court next ordered Thomas to *3 per alimony in for three
pay month $300 stipulation settling A an in a issue alimony years. After three the obli- proceeding dissolution is a contract between per month gations would be reduced to $150 parties accept the which becomes final when twenty-four Thomas was or- for months. approved by ed and the court. In re Mar maintaining pay to the entire cost of dered Bries, (Iowa 319, riage 499 N.W.2d 321 of and dental insurance Sarah on his health App.1993). approved, binding it not Until is period coverage for the maximum allowed may on the but be considered in ren provisions. under COBRA dering its decree. See Iowa Code 598.21(1)(k) (1993). § question auto- in The district court awarded Sarah the this accounts, mobile, approved and certain items case is whether the trial court her bank the property, including stipulation of a lawn tractor. She at the time it was read into the trial, was also awarded the marital home and the incorporate record at and was bound to lot, $14,980. adjoining equity with of Thom- it into its decree. We conclude the court did against property a in accept stipulation. as was awarded lien the not the $5,000 accruing the amount of at the rate of parties orally stipulated to several is- percent per year. also five Sarah was trial, presented at sues to the court on the pen- awarded one-half the value of Thomas’ record. The trial court never informed the sion. parties accept incorporate it would the The district court awarded Thomas an an- stipulation present- in its decree after it was automobile, dresser, tique ac- his his bank trial, simply responded “okay” at ed but after counts, motorcycle, telescope, a a Honda a attorneys agreed one of the told the court he television, trailer, tools, guns gun a and a just portion stipulation pre- with the of the cabinet, a VCR and a camcorder. He was by opposing sented counsel. These circum- additionally awarded his Iowa Electric stock. stances are insufficient to a man- constitute They of to the court. ifestation assent bind appealed. Thomas He contends the dis- objectively an do not indicate intent of the failing incorporate trict in court erred to into by stipula- court to be bound the terms of the portions parties’ stipulation the decree of the tion. providing that the unreimbursed medical ex-
penses equally would be shared and he would depen- Property
be entitled to declare the children as II. Inherited & Gifted ap- dents. Thomas maintains the court by or inheritance received Gifts proved stipulation the at trial and could not during marriage subject spouse the are not rendering later it in abandon its decree. He to the division unless the failure to next claims the district court should have inequitable do so would be to the other lot, adjoining pur- awarded him the since he spouse or children. Iowa Code chased the lot with funds from his inheri- 598.21(2) (1993); Steele, § Marriage In re of only it in tance and was titled his name. (Iowa 18, App.1993). 502 N.W.2d 20 This argues Thomas further he should have been gifted rule is followed even when the or gift awarded the lawn tractor since it was a joint placed in inherited asset had been own lastly from his mother. He contends the ership, replaced or with another asset. See ordering in him district court erred 84, Hoffman, Marriage In re 493 N.W.2d of one-half the costs of the children’s summer (Iowa App.1992). activities, plus per August child in $200 supplies, per testified the lawn tractor was school addition to $1200 support per given month in child month to him his mother. Sarah did not contrary alimony. argues no He that Sarah’s income contest the claim offered only op- testimony. to conclude it remains low because of the limited We are unable Burt, v. Dept. Human Services or the children to Sarah inequitable be would of (Iowa 1991). 669, They take into in N.W.2d was not considered tractor if the lawn living, includ the reasonable costs account Accordingly, we mod- dividing property. dependent chil expenses, for ing educational the lawn ify to award Thomas the decree Fite, Marriage 485 N.W.2d In re dren. tractor. (Iowa 1992). Thus, believe we 664-65 neigh whether the next consider clothes, supplies and re expenses for school aside to have also been set boring lot should under the are considered creation activities tractor, not lawn we are Thomas. Unlike separate support order cov guidelines, and a property re aside the actual asked to set improper absent a ering expenses is such inheritance, aside by gift but set ceived or guidelines amount would be finding that the with inherited funds. property acquired trial court unjust inappropriate. The or *4 Thus, Thomas’ less concerned with we are finding, and we are unable to made no such his parcel of land than with interest in the the evidence. on our de novo review of do so maintaining his inheritance. in interest modify to Accordingly, we the decree remove parcel the of land disputed lot borders The support obligation for summer the additional Moreover, occupied by marital home. the activities, supplies. clothes and school Entry only can be the lot is landlocked. by traversing property marital achieved the Support Spousal IV. only neighboring struc- other land. or shed, a tool which is com- ture on the lot is alimony award of asserts the marital in connection with the patible for use that appeal he asks was excessive. On $300 circumstances, it rea- the is home. Under it be reduced. party lot to be awarded to the sonable for the Many considered in determin- factors are inter- receiving marital home. Thomas’ the alimony to a amount of to be awarded the can be main- preserving est in his inheritance by including defined spouse, those factors property. by awarding him other tained Will, Marriage re 489 N.W.2d statute. In of have reviewed the overall We 598.21(3) (Iowa 394, 1992); § Iowa Code considering all circumstances of division the (1993). factors, Upon review of these we our case, including the inheritance received the by alimony provisions set the agree with the Thomas, equita- by find it to be fair and and nearly marriage spanned district court. to affirm the trial court’s decision ble. We earning capacity and Thomas’ award the lot to Sarah. capacity. greatly exceeds Sarah’s Support III.Child in- ability to increase her Sarah has the come, additional education will be neces- but sup It settled that the child is well Also, active, parent, and sary. as an devoted strictly in port guidelines are followed deter caregiver, primary she must balance her the support obligation. mining parent’s child with the needs of her work and education 598.21(4)(a) (1993); § In re Mar Iowa Code alimony. of children. We affirm the award (Iowa riage Bergfeld, 465 N.W.2d of 1991). vary permitted are not to Courts making a guideline from the amount without V. Conclusion unjust inappro or specific finding it would be provision of the dissolution We affirm each priate. Id. except the district decree entered presented in this case does The issue lawn tractor and child for the award of the guideline not involve a deviation from the modify to award the support. the decree amount, imposition of additional child but the Thomas, and remove the lawn tractor clothes, sup support payments for school requiring Thomas additional provision plies, and summer recreation activities. activities, support for summer clothes child However, guidelines balance the needs supplies. and school legitimate and against the needs the children AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. payor parent. ex rel. expenses of the State except HAYDEN Judges All concur and
SACKETT, JJ., part, in who concur part. in
dissent
HAYDEN, part Judge (concurring
dissenting part). majority except
I for the concur with respectfully of Thomas’s inheritance. I
issue
dissent on this issue. disputed
It is not Thomas inherited the adjacent purchase
funds to the lot to the
parties’ purchase At the this home. time of I
its value was concur with the ma- $1100.
jority go along this lot should to Sarah with parties’ I homestead. determine Thomas compensate
should be awarded part him
reimburse his inheritance.
This could made either in a cash award or be
by increasing Thomas’s hen on the real es-
tate Sarah was awarded.
SACKETT, Judge (concurring part;
dissenting part). respects, except
I concur in ah I would
modify provisions to include in the decree the parties
stipulated to that unreim- expenses equally
bursed medical be shared
and Thomas be entitled to claim all the chil- dependents. stipulation
dren as was
presented to the trial court. There is no stipulation
inequity in the or valid reason
why approved. it should not be Iowa, Appellee,
STATE of
v. DIOS, Appellant.
Jose Luis De
No. 94-1625. Appeals
Court of of Iowa.
Sept. 1995.