Jаy and Joan were married in 1977. At the time of marriage Joan had a college degree; Jay was within a year and one-half of obtaining a degree in veterinary medicine. Joan has been employed throughout the marriage in the sale of agricultural and animal products. Jay’s parents paid him his school expenses and gave him $100 per month while he was in school. Joan’s income supplied the balance of the family expenses.
A home was purchased with a $5,500 loan or gift from Joan’s parents. The home was in Joan’s name. Jay, with the help of a noninterest bearing loan from his parents рurchased a half interest in a veterinary practice in Grundy Center.
In 1981 Joan’s Iowa net income was $21,-549; Jay’s net Iowa income was $25,310.
I. SCOPE OF REVIEW
Our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4 (1983);
In Re Marriage of Castle,
II. PROPERTY DIVISION AND ALIMONY
Joan contends that she should have received an award of cash or alimony to equаlize the property division and to compensate her for the support she gave Jay while hе was in college.
Jay contends that the property division was equitable, restored each person to the position they would have been had it not been for the marriage and that Joan was allowed to fully pursue her career in the marriage.
An examination of the record indicates that the trial judge first set aside to Jay stock in a family corporation that was gifted to him prior to and during the marriage, and then made a careful division of the balance of the marital property, which resulted in a nearly equal division of the marital assets and liabilities. A justified property division is one that is equitable under the circumstances.
Locke v. Locke,
Should Joan have been awarded a greater share of the marital property or alimony because of contributions she made to Jay’s college career? Jay’s college expenses after marriage and a $100 a month living allowance were paid by his parents. Hе also had a small income. Following Jay’s graduation his income exceeded Joan’s.
In Re Marriage of Janssen,
Jay’s veterinary degree has enhanced his earning capacity and it should be one factor tо consider to determine whether alimony should be ordered and whether the property division is aрpropriate. But we consider too the fact that Joan has a bachelor’s degree аnd has by virtue of her degree and past experience obtained employment which is as remunerative as Jay’s veterinary practice. See Janssen at 254.
Joan also contends that Jay’s gifted property shоuld be considered on the alimony issue. We agree that inherited or gifted property can be considered on the issue of alimony.
In Re Marriage of Moffatt,
In considering whether to award alimony we apply the factors of Iowa Code section 598.21.
We consider too the short duration of the marriage; the fact that both parties have a university degree; and substantially equal earning records; the property division made by the trial court; the fact that both parties have made substantial career advancements during the marriage and the fact that both pаrties can maintain a reasonably comparable standard of living after the dissolution.
After cоnsidering the record as a whole, we affirm the trial court’s property division and refusal to award аlimony.
III. CUSTODY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
Joan contends the trial court erred in not awarding the dog, Georgetta, to her.
Jay gave Joan the dog in question for Christmas. When the parties separated the dog remained with Jay. The dog aсcompanies Jay to the office and spends a substantial portion of the day with Jay.
The trial сourt found that custody of the dog should be with Jay.
A dog is personal property and while courts should not put a family pet in a position of being abused or uncared for, we do not have to determine the best interests of a pet.
We have considered the property division as a whole. We find no rеason to disturb the trial court’s decision on the award of the dog to Jay. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.