Opinion ID: 2124255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Property settlement and alimony award.

Text: As we have noted, trial court awarded petitioner the home, furnishings and all of his personal effects. He was ordered to pay all indebtedness. Respondent received a 1974 Ford auto of unknown value and $6000 payable in $500 monthly installments. We cannot agree with trial court these parties are insolvent, nor, in our judgment, is the above property distribution equitable. Without considering the fault concept, we briefly relate some of the evidence in light of applicable criteria articulated in Schantz v. Schantz 163 N.W.2d 398, 405 (Iowa 1968) in determining property rights of these parties. In re Marriage of Fisher, 237 N.W.2d 452, 453 (Iowa 1976). Petitioner retains his 10 percent interest in Ted's Auto Parts, Inc., which according to an exhibit introduced into evidence had a total net worth of $67,971.91. Petitioner also retains his 50 percent interest in Central-Midwest Wreckers, Inc., which provides a telephone service to auto salvage dealers. In 1974 this service organization developed sales of $114,910.50 and a net profit of $2567.66 after paying petitioner and his brother each $12,000 in salary. Other fringe benefits included autos, home telephones and life insurance. Petitioner refused to place any value on his interest in Central-Midwest. Respondent values the business at four times earnings, or $100,000. The corporate financial statement lists its net worth as $14,553.82, allowing nothing for good will or increment of value as a going enterprise. The record convinces us petitioner has a net worth well in excess of $50,000. Respondent's parents gave the parties $2000 and a new car when they were married; petitioner's parents gave them $2000 to help buy a home. Petitioner has a college education and considerable business experience. Respondent sacrificed a college education and job training to make a home and rear the children; she has no significant business experience or training. Petitioner earned $24,000 in 1974, respondent earned nothing. His employment appears secure and his earnings should be at the same or a higher level. Given respondent's lack of training and experience, her earnings will be a fraction of petitioner's income. It is clear their former high standard of living was unjustified then and cannot be maintained now or in the future. Consideration of all the significant Schantz factors demonstrates the imbalance between the parties' respective abilities to be self-supporting. We agree with trial court that petitioner should be awarded the home, furnishings, and his personal property and effects, with the obligation to pay all indebtedness. We also agree respondent should not be required to pay child support and should have the visitation privileges specified by trial court. We hold petitioner shall pay respondent the sum of $400 per month alimony for three years, commencing the first month following issuance of procedendo in this appeal. These payments should assist respondent in obtaining the further education or job training necessary to permit her to undertake a self-supporting career. These payments shall be a charge against petitioner's estate should he die before the end of the three-year period, and his obligation to pay alimony shall not terminate if she remarries. We confirm trial court's decree in awarding respondent the 1974 Ford auto, but modify it by increasing the lump sum property settlement from $6000 to $17,000. Petitioner should not be required to pay all of this amount now, in view of his obligations to pay the indebtedness and totally support the children under trial court's decree. He shall pay $1000 now and the balance shall be paid in installments of $4000 each, without interest, on January 1, 1980, and on each succeeding January 1 until the full amount is paid. Property settlement payments already made by petitioner, if any, shall be credited against the $16,000 of deferred payments above provided for, and the annual installments reduced pro-rata.