IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0492

Filed June 15, 2016

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CATHY R. NELSON

AND RICHARD L. NELSON

Upon the Petition of

CATHY R. NELSON,

Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning

RICHARD L. NELSON,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Mary Pat Gunderson, 

Judge.

Respondent challenges the economic provisions of the parties’ decree 

dissolving their marriage. AFFIRMED.

Jeremy R. Masterson of Masterson, Bottenberg & Eichorn, L.L.P., 

Waukee, for appellant.

Richard R. Schmidt of Spaulding, Berg & Schmidt, P.L.C., Des Moines, for 

appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

Richard Nelson appeals the economic provisions of the decree dissolving 

his sixteen-year marriage to Cathy Nelson. Specifically, he challenges the 

property division and spousal support award. Our review is de novo. See In re 

Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa 2012). We examine the 

entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues properly preserved and 

presented. See In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981). 

We give weight to the findings of the district court, especially regarding credibility 

of the witnesses, but we are not bound by them. See id.

The parties were married in 1998. At the time of trial, Cathy was sixty and 

Richard was fifty-eight. There are no children of this marriage. The parties do 

have adult children from prior relationships. The parties separated in February 

2014.

As relevant here, the record reflects the following regarding the parties’ 

respective employment history. Both parties have a high school education (he a 

GED). When the parties were first married, Cathy worked as a secretary at EMC 

Insurance making approximately twelve dollars per hour with benefits. She has 

held several clerical positions over the course of the parties’ marriage. In August 

2013, Cathy took a position as a food service clerk with the Des Moines Public 

Schools. She earns $11.42 per hour. Her annual income is approximately 

$15,000. Richard worked for American Ambulance/Emergency Vehicle Support 

early in the parties’ relationship, where he earned approximately fifteen dollars

per hour. In 2007, he began working for the United States Postal Service

(USPS). In 2012, he earned $81,000 from the USPS; in 2013, $76,349; in 2014,
3

$69,597.73. His income fluctuates due to overtime. He claims he cannot 

continue to participate in as much overtime as he previously did because of his 

health. Richard has secondary employment/earnings. He contracts with King 

Delivery Service and receives a monthly stipend of $232.81 for providing general 

technical support. He operated a part-time computer consulting and repair 

business. In 2012 and 2013, he had $7800 in gross earnings per year from a 

computer consulting business. He testified that business was no longer viable

because his main clients discontinued their patronage. 

The parties have few unencumbered assets of material value. The marital 

home is assessed at $161,200. The marital home is encumbered by a mortgage 

of $144,074.29 and a home equity loan of $8546.63, for a total encumbrance of 

$152,620.92. The parties seem to agree the home would require substantial 

repairs to list for sale. The parties each have their own vehicle. His is a Toyota 

4-Runner worth approximately $3488. Hers is a Toyota Corolla she purchased 

after the parties separated. It is worth $14,599 and she owes approximately 

$14,000 on it. The parties owned numerous vehicles and recreational 

equipment, including a skid loader, an ambulance, a school bus, a camper, a 

pontoon boat, and various other cars and SUVs. Cathy testified she does not 

know the value of this personal property. Richard testified it all would require 

some level of repair to function but could be sold for scrap. He estimated several 

of the items to be worth approximately $300 each. The parties failed to develop 

the record in any meaningful way regarding the value of the miscellaneous 

personal property.
4

Both parties have bank accounts. Cathy’s affidavit of financial status 

shows a checking account with $200 and a savings account with $500. Richard’s 

checking account balance was approximately $800. Both have retirement 

accounts. She has an IPERS account worth $2200. Cathy testified if she retires 

at age sixty-six she will receive $75 per month from that account. Richard has a 

thrift savings plan valued at more than $20,000. He also has a federal 

employees retirement system benefit (FERSB) he values at $2649.92. 

Richard and Cathy incurred substantial debt during the marriage. Cathy

has outstanding balances on the following credit cards: Blair, Discover, Kohl’s, 

Sears, Target, Younkers, Visa, and a Bank of America card she obtained after 

the separation. Cathy testified she had consolidated many of her debts with 

Consumer Credit of Des Moines, but that consolidation did not include the Blair, 

Visa, or Younkers debts. She testified the consolidation loan was $10,000. 

Richard has outstanding balances on the following credit accounts: Best Buy, 

CitiBank, Bank of America (business), Bank of America (personal), Radio Shack, 

Chase, and PayPal. Cathy owes approximately $11,300 in credit card debt, and 

Richard owes more than $60,200.

The district court took into consideration the parties’ respective financial 

positions and fashioned a property division and spousal support award. The 

district court awarded each party the vehicle in his or her possession and the 

associated debt. It awarded each of them the checking and savings accounts 

belonging to them individually. It awarded each the credit card debt as divided 

above. Richard was awarded the house and ordered to assume the debts 

thereon. Cathy was awarded her IPERS account. Richard and Cathy were each 
5

given half of the value of his two retirement accounts (the thrift savings plan and 

the FERSB). The district court ordered Richard to pay Cathy traditional alimony 

of $750 per month until her death or remarriage, whichever comes first. In 

making that alimony award, the district court considered the length of the parties’ 

marriage, their respective earning capacities, Cathy’s limited employment history 

and skills, and the feasibility of Cathy becoming self-supporting.

Richard first contends the property distribution was inequitable. Iowa is an 

equitable division state. In re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 

2005). Property to be divided between the parties is divided in an equitable 

manner in light of the particular circumstances of the parties. In re Marriage of 

Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006). Assets should be given their value as 

of the date of trial. See In re Marriage of McLaughlin, 526 N.W.2d 342, 344 

(Iowa Ct. App. 1994). “The partners in a marriage are ‘entitled to a just and

equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts.’” In re 

Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (citation 

omitted). The factors to consider in dividing the parties’ property are set forth in 

Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (2013), and need not be set forth in full herein.

On de novo review, we decline to change the property distribution as 

Richard requests. First, Richard agreed to the division during trial. See, e.g., In 

re Marriage of Stahl, No. 02-0582, 2003 WL 557376, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 

28, 2003) (finding record adequate to divide property where party’s testimony 

confirmed consent to the property division). Second, Richard understates the 

value of the property awarded him by largely excluding the miscellaneous 

vehicles and personal property awarded him. Third, Richard overstates the value 
6

of property awarded to Cathy by failing to consider the loan against her vehicle. 

Finally, we conclude the property division is equitable, although not equal. See 

In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 702 (Iowa 2007).

Richard next contends the spousal support award was inequitable. In 

reviewing questions of spousal support, we accord the trial court considerable 

latitude. In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa 2005). We will 

disturb the trial court’s order only when there has been a failure to do equity. Id. 

Spousal support is not an absolute right, and an award thereof depends upon the 

circumstances of a particular case. Id. In determining the appropriate amount of 

spousal support, the earning capacity of each party should be considered by the 

court. In re Marriage of Tzortzoudakis, 507 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Iowa Ct. App. 

1993). The ability of the one spouse to pay should be balanced against the other 

spouse’s needs. Id.

Richard believes Cathy’s request for alimony should have been treated as 

a request for rehabilitative alimony rather than traditional alimony. Iowa 

recognizes three types of alimony: traditional, rehabilitative, and reimbursement. 

Traditional alimony is payable for life or so long as a spouse is incapable of selfsupport. In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 540 (Iowa 2005). Traditional 

alimony is often used in long-term marriages where life patterns have been 

largely set and “the earning potential of both parties can be predicted with some 

reliability.” In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62–63 (Iowa 1989). 

Rehabilitative alimony provides support for an economically dependent spouse 

through a limited period of re-education or retraining. Id. at 63. Reimbursement 

alimony is awarded based on “economic sacrifices made by one spouse during 
7

the marriage that directly enhance the future earning capacity of the other.” 

Anliker, 694 N.W.2d at 541.

Richard argues this marriage did not cross the twenty-year “durational 

threshold” to “merit serious consideration for traditional spousal support.” In re 

Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402, 411 (Iowa 2015). Richard’s argument is 

unavailing. While the Gust court did state that “[g]enerally speaking, marriages 

lasting twenty or more years commonly cross the durational threshold,” id. at 

410–11, the court did not set a bright-line test. Our court has affirmed traditional 

spousal support awards in marriages of shorter duration. See, e.g., Huegli v. 

Huegli, No. 15-0607, 2016 WL 1681435, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016) 

(eight years); In re Marriage of Shepperd, No. 14-1766, 2015 WL 7075750, at *4 

(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015) (sixteen years); In re Marriage of Richards, No. 14-

1698, 2015 WL 4935847, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015) (sixteen years); In 

re Marriage of Witherly, 867 N.W.2d 856, 860 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (seventeen 

years). Further, the duration of the marriage is only a single factor to consider in 

the multifactor statutory framework. See In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 

103, 107 (Iowa 2016) (“Our recognition in Gust that, over time, our cases have 

established general principles governing spousal support awards in no way 

diminishes the statutory mandate to consider each criterion set forth in section 

598.21A(1).”). The Gust court itself recognized, for example, marriages ending 

later in life may necessitate different treatment from those ending when the 

parties are younger. See Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 416 n.2; see also Huegli, 2016 

WL 1681435, at *2.
8

On de novo review, we affirm the district court’s award of alimony. The 

imposition and length of an award of traditional alimony is primarily predicated on 

the need of the payee and the payor’s ability to pay. Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 411. 

The yardstick for determining need is the ability of a spouse to become selfsufficient at “a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during 

the marriage.” Id. “In determining need, we focus on the earning capability of 

the spouses, not necessarily on actual income.” Id. In this case, the parties 

have a long-established pattern of employment and earning history. They 

enjoyed a certain standard of living. Cathy was sixty years of age at the time of 

trial and, realistically, has slim prospects of learning new skills to obtain long-term 

employment earning compensation that would make her self-sufficient. While it 

is true that both parties’ standard of living will decrease following the dissolution 

of their marriage, this is not due to the spousal support award. It is due to the 

parties incurring substantial debt during the marriage that must now be repaid.

Cathy requests appellate fees. Appellate attorney fees are not a matter of 

right, but instead rest in the court’s discretion. Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 255. 

Factors we consider upon such a request include the needs of the party seeking 

the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and the relative merits of the 

appeal. Id. We have considered those factors and decline to grant appellate 

attorney fees. All costs shall be taxed to Richard.

AFFIRMED.