Court Opinion

ID: 9737774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:34:20.921143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:01.212839
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I concur with the majority opinion that the alimony should be reduced. However, I do not believe the record is adequate to determine the amount we should award.
I believe this case is an appropriate case for rehabilitative and reimbursement alimony. Judith’s ten-year absence from the job market resulted in her losing “seniority, pay increases, social security rights, and pension rights” found by the trial court. I do not believe the record is adequate to pinpoint the specific dollar figure to compensate for her losses. I prefer not to guess at what the loss is. The awarding of $1,700 per month for ten years is $187,000. I do not believe the record evidence supports a finding that Judith’s losses equal $187,000.
I differ with the following finding of the majority:
Because of these factors and because of evidence that the large disparity in the parties’ earning capacities will endure while respondent’s standard of living will remain below that to which she is accustomed, we affirm the award of $1,700 per month.
I do not believe this is an appropriate case to award “lifestyle” alimony, nor to equalize spouses’ incomes. Judith, forty-eight, has a master’s degree, many years of work experience, a bright career future, an income of $32,625 per year, and a prop*686erty award of $190,000. Additionally, she has medical, dental, life and disability insurance, and pension benefits. The children are adults and she enjoys good health.
In In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa App.1983), we rejected the argument that the income of spouses should be equalized. We said:
Petitioner’s argument rests upon the assumption that after many years of marriage, during which a husband and wife have shared the husband’s income equally and enjoyed the fruits of his labor, the wife is entitled to no less than half, or at least half of his anticipated future income by way of alimony should their marriage be dissolved. We reject that assumption. Nowhere in our law is such a principle recognized. Nor do the principles of equity countenance such a view.
I believe we should compensate Judith for her losses due to her ten-year absence from the job market. I do not believe equity justifies awarding her any additional money for “lifestyle.” I believe her lifestyle has been adequately provided.
I would remand for more specific evidence of Judith’s losses due to her ten-year absence from the job market.