IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13

- 1888 Filed August 13, 2014

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF NEWELL JOSEPH SCHMIDT AND MARSHA GAIL SCHMIDT Upon the Petition of NEWELL JOSEPH SCHMIDT , Petitioner

- Appell ant /Cross

- Appellee, And Concerning MARSHA GAIL SCHMIDT , Respondent

- Appell ee /Cross

- Appellant

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Randy V. Hefner , Judge.

Newell Joseph Schmidt appeals and Marsha Schmidt cross

- appeals from the district court’s order for spousal support in its decree of dissolution of marriage. Each asserts the district court improperly balanced the relevant statutory factors in cra fting its order. AFFIRMED.

David A. Morse of Rosenberg & Morse , Des Moines , for appellant. James V. McKinney of McKinney Law Offices, P.C. , Waukee , for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Mullins, J., and Sackett, S.J.* *Senior judge assigne d by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).2

POTTERFIELD, P.J. Newell Joseph Schmidt (Joe) appeals from the district court’s order for spousal support issued with its decree of dissolution of his marriage to Marsha Schmidt. He asserts the district court improperly awarded Marsha lifetime spousal support and requests the support order be modified to expire in three
years. Marsha cross

- appeals the order and requests the support order be modified to increase the amount of her monthly support. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background Joe and Marsha were married on October 25, 1980. Their marriage was dissolved by the district court’s decree on October 30, 2013. At the time of the dissolution, Joe was sixty years old and Marsha was fifty

- seven. Joe has been continuously employed by the same employer for the duration of the marriage

. Marsha , on the other hand, left her career early in the marriage to move with Joe to the Des Moines area when Joe was transferred

. She then left her next career
to stay home to raise their two children and manage the household. Their children are now adults and have left the home. Since the birth of their children, Marsha has been sporadically employed in various (usually part

- time) pos itions including work as a retail clerk

. She has
had trouble performing some of her work duties due to physical ailments, including back surgery, a broken ankle, loss of grip strength in her right hand, and “drop

- toe” syndrome. She has actively sought su itable work but has been unable to find full

- time employment. Without an employer that will provide her with medical benefits after the dissolution , she will need to pay for medical3

insurance out of her own pocket in order to receive ongoing treat ment for her physical health issues

. The parties stipulated to the division of all marital assets and debts upon the dissolution of the marriage

. Marsha requested a spousal support order from the district court under Iowa Code section 598.21A (2013). Marsha ass erted the discrepancy between the parties’ respective entitlements to social security
retirement benefits , bo th collecting on Joe’s account, necessitated indefinite spousal support. 1 The district court issued a spousal support order under which Joe will p ay monthly support in the amount of $1500 per month until November 2018; thereafter $1000 per month until November 2022; and thereafter $500 per month until the death of either party. The order is crafted such that the amount of support will “be decreased as both parties become eligible for social security retirement benefits.” Joe appeals the order, asserting the district court did not properly weigh the assets Marsha received pursuant to the stipulated division of marital property against the need for i ndefinite spousal support. He requests a modification of the support order to $750

- per - month payments for three years. Marsha cross

appeals, asserting the district court did not give sufficient weight to her disparate earning capacity, social security re tirement benefits gap, and declining health. She requests a modifica tion of the support order to $2000 per month until
November 2022, at which time the payments would be reduced to $573 per

1 Joe will be able to receive $1 731 per month in social security benefits if he ret ires at sixty

- two years old, $2 350 per month at sixty

- six, and $3 139 per month at seventy. Marsha will likely receive approximately $1 017 per month on Joe’s account if she retire s at sixty

- two years old and $1 408 per month at sixty

- six and six months.4

month for the remainder of her life. Marsha further requests tha t she be reimbursed for her attorney fees and costs for this appeal. II. Scope and Standard of Review “Appeals regarding the dissolution of marriage are equitable proceedings.” In re Marriage of Schenkelberg , 824 N.W.2d 481, 483 (Iowa 2012); see Iowa Code § 598.3. Our review is de novo. In re Marriage of Morris , 810 N.W.2d 880, 885 (Iowa 2012); see Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. “A trial court has considerable latitude when making an award of spousal support.” Schenkelberg , 824 N.W.2d
at 486. “There fore, we will only disturb the trial court’s award of spousal support if it fails to do equity between the parties.” Id. III. Discussion “Alimony is not a matter of absolute right, but depends upon the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Marr iage of Hansen , 733 N.W.2d 683, 704 (Iowa 2007). “The amount of spousal support is always calculated equitably based upon all of the [statutory] factors.” Schenkelberg , 824 N.W.2d at 486. Those factors include the length of the marriage, the age and hea lth of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the educational level of the parties, the earning capacity and feasibility of self

- support of the party seeking alimony, and “other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual ca se.” Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)

. In this case, t he district court determined

— and we
agree
— that social security benefits and retirement plans were additional relevant factors. See In re Marriage of Schissel , 292 N.W.2d 421, 424

– 27 (Iowa 1980) ( holding that retirement pay is a proper consideration in dissolution actions)

.5
A court may order s pousal support for a limited or indefinite period of time. Iowa Code § 598.21A(1). Support can continue beyond the parties’ anticipated dates of retirement, and the am ount of support can be reduced over time. In re Marriage of Bell , 576 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by In re Marriage of Wendell , 581 N.W.2d 197, 200 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
The district court’s spo usal support order was equitable in light of all the circumstances in this case. The court noted the marriage was of a substantial length

— thirty

- three years. It properly considered Joe’s good health and compared it to Marsha’s physical ailments , which negatively impact her abi lity to maintain employment and to become self

- sufficient. It acknowledged that the stipulated division of the marital assets was balanced , which weighs in Joe’s favor

. B ut it also acknowledged that Marsha’s earning potential was significantly
lower than Joe’s due to her health and her absence from the workforce while she raised the children and managed the household. The record supports the court’s finding that “with reasonable effort Marsha should be able to e arn $10,000 to $15,000 per year, ” a signifi cantly lower annual income than Joe’s. The district court properly took the parties’ prospective social security benefits into account as well. It crafted its spousal support order to account for Marsha’s ability to draw benefits from Joe’s social securi ty in the future by decreasing the amount to be paid as each party reaches retirement age and as they are able to rely on their retirement benefits rather than their work income for support. This arrangement equitably alleviates the pressure on Joe to pay larger

sums in the future while still providing for Marsha to maintain her quality of life.6

The order sufficiently provides for Marsha so as to cover her living expenses and for private health insurance while she searches for employment. It is reasonabl e to expect that Marsha will be able to arrange for sufficient self

support by November 2018 , when the first decrease in support takes effect. She will also be eligible for higher monthly payments from Joe’s social security account if she retires in 2018, alleviating the strain of the decrease in support. By 2022, s he will be eligible for Medicare prior to the second decrease in support. The order sufficiently provides for both parties and avoids granting either
with a n unequitable windfall

. In light of Joe’s earning capacity, it is reasonable to expect him to pay the assigned amounts. In light of Marsha’s current expenses, her future eligibility for social security benefits on Joe’s account, and her future Medicare eligibility, the assigned amounts are sufficient for her to maintain her quality of life. Because w e find the district court’s spousal support order to be equitable
in li ght of all of the circumstances, w e affirm. Each party bear s its own attorney fees and costs of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.