IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21

- 0865 Filed December 7, 2022

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KIMBERLY KAY BJUGAN - ALLEN AND ROBERT CHARLES ALLEN Upon the Petition of KIMBERLY KAY BJUGAN - ALLEN , Petitioner

- Appell ant/Cross

- Appellee , And Concerning ROBERT CHARLES ALLEN , Respondent

- Appell ee/Cross

- Appellant

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg , Judge.

E x - spouse s both challenge the division of marital property. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS

.

Shanon M. Hounshell of SMH Law, PLLC , Ankeny , for appellant. Anjela Shutts and Anna E. Mallen of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C. , Des Moines , for appellee.

Considered by Tabor , P.J. , Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J. * *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2022 ).2

Tabor , Presiding Judge

. Robert Allen (Rob) and Kimberly Bjugan

- Allen 1 (Kimber) married in 2014. When they divorced s ix years later, the district court awarded each of them the property that they brought into the marriage. The court also ordered Rob to make an equalization payment of $35 3 0. 2 Kimber appeals and Rob cross

- appeals , challenging the amount of that payment. Finding the court achieved equity between the parties, we affirm on both appeal s

. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Both Rob and Kimber accumulated valuable a ssets while they were single. Kimber had long

- time employment as a customer service representative for a major financial company. She earned about $53,000 annually

. Rob mostly worked as a tree trimmer for a large firm. 3 His pay reached nearly $87,000 per year. Coming into their marriage, both Rob and Kimber had retirement accounts
and owned homes in Des Moines . The couple chose to live at Rob’s residence and rented out Kimber’s house. They had no children together . So the only fighting issue on ap peal is the division of their property.

1 By a provision of the decree , Kimber’s last name is now Bjugan. 2 The court originally ordered an equalization payment of about $19,000, but reduced the amount after Rob filed a motion to reconsider under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). 3 For two years during the marriage, Rob pursued a venture as an independent distributor, operating a route to sell bread at various stores. But the pay did not pan out , and he returned to his more lucrative job as a tree trimmer.3

The district court awarded both parties the property that they brought into the marriage, offering this valuation of their assets and liabilities : 4

Description Kimber Rob Kimber’s home $128,000 Mortgage ($93 8 ) Rob’s home $160,000 Mortgage ($88,42 3 ) 2020 Hyundai $28,785 Auto loan ($31,47 6 ) 2019 Chevy $36,000 1996 Mercury $500 1994 trailer $500 Kimber’s bank account $231 5 Rob’s bank account $561 1 Kimber’s 401k $90,7 60 Loan against 401k ($20,5 40 ) Kimber’s retirement annuity $48,445 Rob’s IRA $44,50 3 Rob’s pension $78,239 Rob’s retirement annuity $127,124 Kimber’s personal property $3078 Rob’s personal property $1800 Rob’s LLC $1300 Kimber’s other debts ($12,98 4 ) Rob’s other debts ($ 0 ) Total $235,44 7 $367,153 The court also ordered Rob to make an equalization payment to Kimber based on half the amount the parties paid down on Rob’s home mortgage during marriage and half the amount Kimber paid for repairs, remodeling, and appliances in Rob’s home. A fter hearing Rob’s post

- trial motion, the court reduced the equalization payment by half the amount the parties paid down on Kimber’s home mortgage during marriage, ultimately ordering Rob to pay $3 5 30 to Kimber

.

4 We’ve rounded the amou nts to the nearest dollar.4
Kimber appeals and Rob cross

- appeals the equalizatio n payment. Kimber also requests appellate attorney fees.
II. Scope and Standard of Review We review dissolution proceedings de novo. In re Marriage of Hansen , 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa 2016). W e give weight to the district court’s factual findings, but they do not bind us. Id. We will modify a decree only when its provisions fail to do equity. Id.
III. Analysis
A. Equalization Payment Before i ssuing a decree, the district court must equitably divide all property owned by the parties at the time of divorce (except property that one spouse inherited or received as a gift). Id. But , as we often say , equity is not always synonymous with an equal division or a precise percentage distribution. Id

. Rathe r, the court must decide what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. In re Marriage of Hazen , 778 N.W.2d 55, 59 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009). When equitabl y divi ding the marital property , we mull the factors in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (2020). See Hansen , 886 N.W.2d at 872. For this appeal,
k ey among those factors is “ [t]h e property brought to the marriage by each party.” Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(b). True, p remarital ownership is just one factor among many to be considered in a fair di stribution. But in a short

- term marriage, like this one, a party’s claim to the premarital property owned by the other spouse is
minimal. Hansen , 886 N.W.2d at 872

– 73

. Rob and Kimber entered a pretrial stipulation , agreeing who would receive
what mari tal property. Thus , t heir arguments on appeal focus on the equalization5

payment designed to do equity after th at property division. “ An equalization payment suggests each party should be awarded an equal amount of assets and
liabilities. ” Id. at 873. “ But to achieve equity, the division need not be equal in
most short

- term marriages. Rather, it is often equitable to simply award the property to the party that brought it into the marriage. ” Id.

1. Kimber’s appeal Kimber argues the equalization pay ment is too low considering her greater contributions to the marriage and the disparate value of marital assets awarded to each party. As shown in the chart above, t he district court awarded Rob $367,153 in marital property compared to $ 235,44 7 for Kimber , a difference of $131,70 6

. 5
But a division of marital assets may be equitable even if it is not a fifty

- fifty split , especially for a short

- term marriage involving significant premarital property. See
id. Here, the difference between the awards reflec t s the character and value of
the assets each party brought into the marriage. The equalization payment reimbursed Kimber for the use of her funds to maintain and upgrade Rob’s home. Beyond these expenditures, she did not make an “overriding contribution or sacrifice” for the marriage. See id. Both parties worked full time through most of the marriage . A nd despite Kimber’s criticism, we do not discount Rob’s efforts to build a business that did not yield the profit he’d hoped for . Kimber’s actions of handling finances and paying bills are the type of contributions expected in a marriage. See In re Marriage of Fennelly , 737 N.W.2d 97, 104 (Iowa 2007) (“Suffice it to say, neither party shirked his or her duties so as

5 While Rob challenges the court’s valuations of the marital property in his cross

appeal , we accept the court’s valuations for purposes of Kimber’s argument.6

to justify di sparate treatment .”). Therefore, we decline to increas e the equalization payment even considering the disparity in the property award s and the parties’
relative contributions to the marriage.

2. Rob’s appeal Rob argues the district court commit t ed five erro rs in its treatment of the marital property . He assert s the court should have : (1) considered the liability on his 2019 Chevy; (2) assigned a lesser value to his home ; (3) set aside the premarital value of his retirement accounts; (4) assigned a lesser va lue to his pension; and (5) set aside the loan on Kimber’s 401K

. As to the liability on Rob’s vehicle, that debt should be considered when dividing the marital estate

. But that consideration does not change the bottom line.
T he court determined Rob’s vehicle is worth $36,000, and Rob asserts he has a $35,63 2 liability on it

. Similarly, the court determined Kimber’s vehicle is worth $28,785 with a liability of $31,47 6. Thus, the dissolution decree equitably awarded
each part y the vehicle he or she acquired during marriage ; these vehicles have little net value after considering the ir respective liabilities

. As to Rob’s other points , in essence he requests an alignment of “each party’s assets and debts in a balance sheet to de termine an equalization payment.”
Hansen , 886 N.W.2d at 873. Such accounting is unnecessary whe n the marriage
was short

- term with significant premarital assets and the property acquired during
the marriage has minimal net value

. Id. Instead , it is equi table to award the property to the party who brought it into the marriage. Id. The biggest ticket items here are the two homes and the parties’ retirement accounts. The parties held these assets before their marriage, and each party’s7

assets appreciated without significant contributions from the other party

. ( The exception is Kimber’s contribution to the marital home recognized in the equalization payment. ) Even if we accept Rob’s claims concerning t he net v alue of the property awarded each party, any adjustments would not fundamentally change our analysis. It was fair for the court to restore the assets to the party who brought them into their six

- year marriage . We decline to reduce Rob’s equalization
paym ent despite his contentions about the value of their property awards.
B. Appellate Attorney Fees. Kimber requests appellate attorney fees. We award such fees as a matter of discretion. In re Marriage of Towne , 966 N.W.2d 668, 680 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021).
W e consider th ree factors: first th e needs of the party seeking the award, then the ability of the other party to pay, and finally the relative merits of the ir appeal s

. Id. Looking to the first factor, Kimber works full time and received a fair share of the marital property. She has means to pay for her own representation. On the second factor, Rob earns a somewhat higher income and received a greater share of the
marital property

. And last, neither party was successful in attacking the decree. Considering all three factors, we decline to award appellate attorney fees. Costs are divided equally between the parties. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.