Court Opinion

ID: 9707842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:23:04.164223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:38.812043
License: Public Domain

CADY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I believe extraordinary circumstances exist which require the continuation of the alimony payments.
The general rule that remarriage of a spouse establishes a prima facie case for termination of an alimony obligation is based on public policy that a spouse should not have support or its equivalent during the same period from both a former spouse and a current spouse. See In re Marriage of Shima, 360 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1985). In *432this case, Karen was not awarded alimony for financial support, but solely to balance the inequities of the property division. See In re Marriage of Thomas, 319 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Iowa 1982) (holding former wife entitled to alimony where former husband was awarded farm acquired by gift and- inheritance and there was a need to adjust for former wife’s contribution to farm). At the time the petition for modification was filed, the essential balance had not been accomplished. Alimony should continue to carry out the goal of an equitable distribution of the property. The need to complete this distribution, in my judgment, constitutes extraordinary circumstances.