IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-0055

Filed November 3, 2021

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEVEN RAY SCHMITZ

AND PAULA RAE SCHMITZ

Upon the Petition of

STEVEN RAY SCHMITZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

And Concerning

PAULA RAE SCHMITZ,

Respondent-Appellee

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, 

Judge.

Steven Schmitz appeals the property distribution in the decree dissolving 

his marriage to Paula Schmitz. AFFIRMED.

Paul W. Demro of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, 

P.L.C., Cedar Falls, for appellant.

Rick R. Lubben, La Porte City, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Judge.

Steven and Paula Schmitz married in 2010. The couple entered into a 

contract to purchase an acreage. When the couple divorced in late 2020, the 

district court found “the principal balance owed on” the acreage would be 

“$243,545.90” at the beginning of 2021, and the couple would have “made 

payments of principal plus interest totaling $117,575.” The court granted Steven 

ownership and possessory rights to the acreage but ordered him to pay Paula 

$40,000 “to accomplish an equitable division of the parties’ rights and interest in 

the contract.” The court reasoned:

[Paula] contributed wages toward the installment payments required 

by the contract. She made homemaking contributions to care for and

maintain the property as required by the contract. In setting the 

amount at $40,000 rather than an amount closer to one-half of the 

total principal and interest payments that the parties will have made 

by the end of this year under the contract, the court has also

considered that [Steven] is assuming some risk that he may not be 

able to perform the contract for health or other reasons, [Steven’s] 

past contributions to performing the contractual obligations, and the 

efforts that [Steven] will be required to make to continue performing 

the contractual obligations after this decree is entered.

The court also considered the property payment in tandem with Paula’s spousal 

support request and denied that request in part because “[t]he payments that she 

[would] receive pursuant to the marital property division [would] be sufficient for 

her maintenance as she continue[d] to work toward becoming self-supporting at a 

standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.” 

The court further noted that “[s]pousal support payments in addition to the 

payments required by the property division would place an unreasonable financial 

burden upon [Steven,] given his income and his other obligations under the 

decree.” 
3

On appeal, Steven takes issue with the amount of the payment. He argues:

“[I]f we assume there is equity in the property as the result of the joint efforts of the 

parties, the joint equity is only approximately $25,394.12. Each party’s share is 

$12,697.06. There is no basis for the [c]ourt’s award to Paula of over three times 

that amount.” 

We are unpersuaded. The district court considered pertinent statutory 

factors, including Paula’s contributions to the marriage, Steven’s health, and 

Paula’s spousal support request. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c), (d), (h) (2019). 

Even if the district court had used a fair-market-value analysis, resulting in joint 

equity of $25,394,12, Steven’s proposed figure overlooks the ten-year length of 

the marriage and the significant disparity in the parties’ earnings. Significantly, the 

court declined to award Paula half the value of the couple’s payments on the 

contract, settling instead for about thirty-four percent of those payments. Even 

under Steven’s proposed calculation using fair market value, given the significant 

disparity in income, Paula’s contributions to the marriage, and Paula’s need for 

support, we do not find the property settlement to be inequitable. On our de novo 

review, we conclude the record fully supports the court’s findings in support of the 

$40,000 award.

AFFIRMED.