Court Opinion

ID: 9408689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 15:07:52.185848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:45.492858
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 21-1672
                                Filed July 13, 2023

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAMIE ROBIN SOMMERVILLE
AND TARA MICHELLE SOMMERVILLE

Upon the Petition of
JAMIE ROBIN SOMMERVILLE,
      Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

And Concerning
TARA MICHELLE SOMMERVILLE,
     Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for         Pottawattamie County,

Richard H. Davidson, Judge.

      Tara Sommerville and Jamie Sommerville appeal economic provisions of

the decree dissolving their marriage.        AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND

REMANDED.

      P. Shawn McCann, of McGinn, Springer & Noethe, P.L.C., Council Bluffs,

for appellant/cross-appellee.

      Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West

Des Moines, for appellee/cross-appellant.

      Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
                                         2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

      Tara Sommerville appeals the economic provisions of the decree dissolving

her marriage to Jamie Sommerville. She contends the district court erred in

determining Jamie’s earning capacity and awarding child support and spousal

support. She also contends Jamie dissipated marital assets by incurring penalties

and interest when he failed to file and pay timely the parties’ income taxes over a

ten-year period. Finally, Tara challenges the division of the marital property and

debt. On cross-appeal, Jamie contends the spousal-support award is too high.

      Because the district court erred in determining the amount of Jamie’s

earnings, we remand to the district court for modification of the provisions of the

decree relating to the amount of child support awarded. We also modify the

amount and duration of the spousal support awarded to Tara. Finally, we affirm

the district court’s finding that Jamie did not dissipate marital assets and the

property-division provisions of the decree.

      I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

      Jamie and Tara married in 1996 and have four children together. Tara

worked in human resources until her place of employment closed in 2009. She

returned to school in 2010 and earned her master’s degree in mental health in

2012. Tara stayed home to parent the children fulltime until 2018, when she

accepted a job as a school counselor. She earns a salary of $47,297.
                                          3

       Jamie works in construction. He and Tara formed Sommerville Resources

Inc. (SRI), a chapter S corporation,1 which performs commercial construction.

Jamie did not receive a salary from SRI until 2018. Before then, Jamie and Tara

withdrew from the business’s accounts or paid directly from them to fund their

personal expenses. Between 2015 and 2020, Jamie represented to different

financial institutions that he earned an income of $180,000 per year. At trial, he

claimed that SRI was struggling amid the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated

a staff reduction and decreased expenditures. Jamie estimated that if SRI fails,

he could earn about $70,000 per year working for another construction company.

       Although the parties’ personal and corporate tax returns were professionally

prepared, they never filed returns for the years 2008 through 2016. In 2019, they

filed returns for the years 2017 and 2018 but made no payment on their tax liability.

As a result, they owe a significant amount of state and federal taxes, including

penalties and interest.

       Jamie petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2018. Trial was delayed until

2021. In the decree dissolving the marriage, the district court granted the parties

joint legal custody of the children and placed their physical care with Tara. It

estimated Jamie’s income at $70,000 per year in calculating his child-support

obligation. After valuing and dividing the property, the court ordered Jamie to pay

Tara $28,412 to equalize the distribution and held the parties jointly liable for their

outstanding taxes. Finally, it ordered Jamie to pay Tara spousal support for ten

1Tara owns 51% of SRI so it would be identified as a female-owned business. But
she had limited involvement with SRI. As the district court noted, “SRI is Jamie’s
business. He is the owner-operator that makes all of the decisions.”
                                           4

years. It set the amount of spousal support at $350 per month while two or more

children are eligible for child support, $500 per month when one child is eligible for

child support, and $1200 per month once child support ends.

         II. Scope of Review.

         We review dissolution proceedings de novo. In re Marriage of Mauer, 874

N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). We give weight to the district court’s fact findings

although they are not binding. Id.

         III. Discussion.

         On appeal, both parties challenge the amount and duration of spousal

support awarded to Tara. Tara also challenges the amount of child support and

the division of property and debts. We address each argument in turn.

                A. Support awards.

         We begin with the awards of child support and spousal support. Resolution

of both issues requires a determination of the parties’ earnings. See, e.g., In re

Marriage of Wade, 780 N.W.2d 563, 566 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (observing that

application of the child support guidelines requires determining the parties’ net

monthly income); In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481, 486–87 (Iowa

2012) (stating an award of spousal support depends on the circumstances of each

case and factors the comparative earning capacities of the parties). Because Tara

challenges the district court’s determination of Jamie’s income,2 we begin there.

         The task of determining Jamie’s income is complicated by his employment

2   Neither party challenges the court’s finding that Tara earns $47,297 per year.
                                         5

with SRI. Although the business’s earnings fluctuated over time, the district court

found that both SRI and Jamie have been profitable and would continue to be:

       Jamie and SRI have a history of profitability. The years 2010 through
       2018 were especially strong years for the company as it enjoyed
       steady commercial construction projects for brick and mortar stores
       such as Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works. SRI’s largest
       customer changed ownership in 2019 and he was receiving less
       work from the customer even before the coronavirus pandemic. The
       court acknowledges that the pandemic and the loss of retail
       construction projects have affected SRI’s bottom line. Yet, the
       economy is rebounding and home construction and other
       commercial construction will increase. SRI may operate with fewer
       employees but the court is confident that Jamie and the company will
       continue to be successful.

But the court then accepted Jamie’s testimony that he could earn $70,000 per year

if SRI fails because “there is little other evidence of Jamie’s current income.” Tara

challenges this finding, arguing that Jamie earns $180,000 per year.

       We determine the parties’ incomes from the most reliable evidence

presented. In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991). Generally,

the best evidence of income comes from completed income tax returns. In re

Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). But that income

“may not necessarily equate to a party’s adjusted net income on their tax return.”

Id. This may be especially true when calculating self-employed income or income

generated from a closely held corporation.          See, e.g., In re Marriage of

Wiedemann, 402 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987) (“It is not uncommon for an owner

to cover many normal personal living expenses through the corporation or to over-

depreciate or undervalue inventory, all of which would decrease profits while

increasing the owner’s standard of living or the actual value of the company’s

assets.”); In re Marriage of McKamey, 522 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994)
                                           6

(concluding that district court properly increased self-employed husband’s income

by amounts taken from business for personal use but claimed as business

expenses on husband’s tax returns); In re Marriage of Claar, No. 05-0174, 2006

WL 334219, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2006) (finding the adjusted gross income

figures from the parties’ income tax returns were “of little value in calculating child

support” because they took significant deductions for self-employed husband’s

construction business and omitted cash and barter payments, and their actual

income was sufficient to support a comfortable lifestyle that included a new home,

vacations, and domestic help).

       As the district court noted, there is little evidence of Jamie’s recent earnings.

The professionally prepared federal and state tax returns for the years 2008

through 2018 were admitted at trial, although only the 2017 and 2018 were filed.

Jamie’s personal tax return for 2019 are also in the record, but SRI’s return is not.

For 2020, the record includes only a schedule K-1 that purports to show Jamie’s

share of income, deductions, and credits for SRI, a statement of his unemployment

insurance compensation payments, and copies of two personal checks made out

to Jamie. Although the trial was held in 2021, we have no documentation of

Jamie’s earnings that year.3 Two years have since passed.

3 Jamie agreed that his 2020 earnings are “reflective” of what he was earning in
2021. At the same time, Jamie claimed that he did not know how much he earned
in 2020:
              Q. What is your understanding as far as how much money you
      made in 2020 from SRI? A. Oh, I don’t know that.
              Q. Okay. You have no understanding? A. No. I don’t. I don’t.
              Q. In all candor and honesty, do you have any understanding
      at all as far as how much you made in 2020? A. No, I didn’t.
              Q. You’ve not kept track at all? A. I really haven’t.
                                         7

       The district court found Jamie earns $70,000 per year based solely on his

trial testimony, so we begin there. Jamie testified that SRI’s past earnings are not

indicative of its present earnings because of an economic downturn that began in

2018. Jamie claimed that he needs to reinvent the business for its survival, a

process that will take time. Asked how he planned to earn money in 2021, Jamie

explained how he was reducing SRI’s business expenditures to “slim down our

overhead as much as possible.” Although Jamie’s goal is keeping SRI in business,

he testified about how he can earn money if it fails:

              Q. If it doesn’t work given the pandemic and the commercial
       market, what will you do? A. Well, I don’t have a college degree, so
       I would probably become a superintendent or a general foreman or
       something for another company.
              Q. And how much do you think you could earn if that were the
       case? A. Roughly $70,000.

On this basis, Jamie testified he was willing to impute to himself an income of

$70,000 per year, and he submitted child support guidelines worksheets that used

that adopted figure as his earnings.

       Tara argues the court erred in accepting Jamie’s testimony as evidence of

his current earnings because of its stated concerns about his credibility. In the

decree, the district court found:

       Jamie was evasive and less than forthcoming during his testimony
       concerning the finances of both SRI and the family. The court
       questions his credibility but in many instances, there was no other
       evidence presented. The court also finds it incredulous that Jamie
       did not disclose the couple’s tax liability exposure when applying for
       bank credit. His lack of candor with his bankers, attorneys and on
       cross examination hangs over his testimony.
                                           8

In view of these credibility findings, we are unwilling to base Jamie’s income on his

speculative and unsubstantiated testimony regarding how much he might earn if

his business fails.

       Tara claims that Jamie earns $180,000 per year. She testified that she

reached this figure based on “what he’s made in the past and his expenditures,

what he’s paid himself and spent since the divorce has been going on.” She also

cites credit applications he submitted in 2015, 2019, and 2020 in which he

represented an annual income of $180,000.4 Unlike Jamie, Tara provides some

evidence supporting her claim. But that evidence is insufficient for us to base

finding.

       The best evidence of Jamie’s income comes from the tax returns. Those

documents show that even when SRI is performing well, its income fluctuates

considerably with no easily identifiable trends. Jamie argues his historical earnings

are not reliable evidence on which to base his current earnings because SRI

encountered financial difficulties in the years leading up to the divorce. But this is

not the first time SRI has struggled. Jamie testified that SRI had to “pivot” from

residential to commercial construction because the market changed. Based on

SRI’s tax returns, it appears this occurred shortly after the business began in 2008.

Although Jamie says that changing SRI’s focus took time, it ultimately succeeded

with earning its highest profits in 2014 and 2017.

       Jamie testified that SRI’s recent struggles began in 2018. But he continued

working for SRI at the time of trial, and the district court stated its confidence in the

4Jamie minimized these representations at trial, testifying that the $180,000 figure
“was probably a goal.”
                                          9

business’s continued success. Although the records for the most recent years are

incomplete or nonexistent, the court is not required to base its determination of a

party’s income on that party’s most recent earnings. See In re Marriage of Hagerla,

698 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). “[I]n some cases the only equitable

way to determine income for purposes of child support is to average income over

a period of time.” Id. For those who are self-employed or have a fluctuating

income, averaging income over a period may provide a more accurate reflection

of earnings. In re Marriage of Cossel, 487 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992).

       The prepared tax returns for the years 2008 through 2018 provide the best

evidence of Jamie’s earnings. Those years cover SRI’s financial struggle in a bad

market, transition to a different business model, and financial success, and they

end with the start of the current economic downturn. During that period, SRI

earned its lowest net profit of $77,044 in 2008 and its highest net profit of $205,942

in 2017. Jamie’s personal tax returns show he earned between $81,154 and

$224,873 during that time. Omitting his highest and lowest earnings and averaging

his earnings for the remaining years, Jamie earned an average of $142,763 per

year. This figure, which is in keeping with Jamie’s continued spending, is more

reflective of Jamie’s earnings than the $70,000 used by the district court or the

$180,000 urged by Tara. We remand to the district court to calculate the amount

of child support based on Jamie earning $142,763 per year.

       We turn then to the award of spousal support. The district court awarded

Tara ten years of spousal support, varying the amount depending on the amount

of child support she receives. While two or more children are eligible for support,

the court ordered Jamie to pay Tara $350 per month. The amount of spousal
                                        10

support increases to $500 per month when only one child is eligible. Finally, the

award increases to $1200 per month once Jamie’s child-support obligation ends.

      Both parties challenge the amount and duration of the spousal-support

award. Tara argues traditional spousal support is appropriate based on the length

of the marriage. She also cites the lavish lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage

and argues she is incapable of supporting herself at the same standard. Jamie,

on the other hand, argues the court should reduce or eliminate the award. He

claims that he cannot support his own lifestyle while paying both spousal and child

support and asks that any modification should be applied retroactively to the date

of his first payment. If this court affirms the spousal-support award, Jamie asks

that the court modify the award to terminate on either party’s death or Tara’s

remarriage.

      In determining spousal support, we look to the factors listed in Iowa Code

section 598.21A(1) (2018). In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15, 20 (Iowa

2020). Those factors include the length of the marriage, the age and health of the

parties, the property award, and the earning capacity of the party seeking

maintenance, plus any other factors the court deems relevant. See Iowa Code

§ 598.21A(1); In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481, 486–87 (Iowa

2012) (stating an award of spousal support depends on the circumstances of each

case). We recognize that the trial court has “considerable latitude” in awarding

spousal support. Mann, 943 N.W.2d at 20 (citation omitted). We intervene on

appeal “only where there is a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage of Gust, 858

N.W.2d 402, 416 (Iowa 2015).
                                          11

       In awarding Tara spousal support, the court noted her financial struggle

during the parties’ separation. It observed that without Jamie’s ability to tap into

SRI’s resources, Tara was “forced . . . to borrow money from her parents, trade

vehicles, skip rental payments to her uncle-landlord, and seek tuition assistance

from [the children’s school]. Tara has not attempted to use the lake house in part

because of the expense of gas for the boats.” In contrast, it found Jamie was in a

superior financial situation, noting he “has continued his trips to the lake house and

recently vacationed out of state in Texas and Wyoming.”

       An award of traditional spousal support is warranted under the factors set

out in section 598.21A(1). Jamie’s income of $142,763 per year is substantially

higher than Tara’s income of $47,297 per year, providing Jamie with discretionary

income while Tara struggles to pay basic expenses. Because the parties were

married for twenty-four years, Tara is entitled to an award of traditional spousal

support. See In re Marriage of Sokol, 985 N.W.2d 177, 185 (Iowa 2023) (noting a

marriage of this length crosses the “durational threshold” to merit “serious

consideration for traditional spousal support” (quoting Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 410–

11)). “[T]he duration of support should correspond with need.” Id. It “is normally

payable until the death of either party, the payee’s remarriage, or until the

dependent is capable of self-support at the lifestyle to which the party was

accustomed during the marriage.” Id. If possible, we fix support to allow both

parties to continue their standard of living. Id.

       We turn to the financial condition of the parties. Tara’s net monthly income

is $3401, and her affidavit of financial status lists monthly expenses totaling $7304.

Jamie’s net monthly income is $8057, and he testified his monthly expenses total
                                            12

$6889. Based on Tara’s need and Jamie’s ability to pay, we modify the decree to

award Tara $1800 per month in spousal support, terminating at the death of either

party. We decline Jamie’s request to end spousal support automatically on Tara’s

remarriage. See In re Marriage of Mihm, 842 N.W.2d 378, 382 (Iowa 2014) (stating

that “remarriage of an ex-spouse does not automatically terminate spousal

support”). In the event Tara remarries, Jamie may seek modification of the award,

and Tara would bear the burden of showing “extant extraordinary circumstances

that justify continuing the support.” Id.

              B. Income taxes and penalties.

       Tara next challenges the portion of the decree addressing the parties’

outstanding tax liability. Between 2008 and 2016, the parties’ personal returns and

SRI’s corporate returns were prepared but not filed, and they failed to pay any of

the taxes due in those years. In 2019, they filed returns in 2017 and 2018 but

failed to pay the taxes owed for those years.

       The court found that despite the ownership records, Jamie is the owner of

SRI and made all the decisions regarding the company. It noted that he was the

sole source of the family’s income in most of the years that taxes were not paid. It

found Tara’s testimony that she was unaware that Jamie failed to pay the taxes

was “credible but also naïve.” Ultimately, it found that Jamie and Tara were jointly

responsible for their outstanding tax debt:

       While Jamie is the more culpable for his decision to not file the
       returns and pay the taxes, Tara cannot escape responsibility as part
       owner of SRI. It is hard to imagine Tara did not question that she
       was not asked to sign a personal return. At bottom, both Tara and
       Jamie were responsible for insuring annual corporate returns, as well
       as the personal tax returns, were filed and taxes paid.
                                         13

As a result, the court treated the outstanding taxes as a marital debt.

       Tara argues that Jamie’s failure to file the parties’ income taxes and pay

their tax liability amounts to dissipation of marital assets for which he should be

held solely responsible. The courts use a two-pronged test in determining whether

dissipation occurred. See In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa

2013). First, the court asks whether the purpose of the expenditure of marital funds

is supported by the evidence. See id. The court then determines whether the

purpose was dissipation. To identify dissipation, the court considers:

       (1) the proximity of the expenditure to the parties’ separation,
       (2) whether the expenditure was typical of expenditures made by the
       parties prior to the breakdown of the marriage, (3) whether the
       expenditure benefited the ‘joint’ marital enterprise or was for the
       benefit of one spouse to the exclusion of the other, and (4) the need
       for, and the amount of, the expenditure.

Id. (citation omitted).

       We decline to treat Jamie’s failure to file tax returns and pay income tax as

dissipation of the assets. The nonpayment of taxes occurred over a ten-year

period preceding the dissolution action. Although Tara was unaware of the debt,

nothing in the record shows that the nonpayment of taxes benefitted Jamie to the

exclusion of Tara. Both parties benefited from the income on which the taxes were

assessed. Both benefited from expenditures made in lieu of those tax payments.

On this basis, we affirm the decree’s treatment of the outstanding tax liability as a

joint marital debt to be divided between the parties.

               C. Property division.

       Finally, Tara challenges the five provisions relating to the decree’s division

of property. We begin with the well-established tenets of property division:
                                          14

               Iowa is an equitable distribution jurisdiction. In dissolution-of-
       marriage cases, marital property is to be divided equitably,
       considering the factors outlined in Iowa Code section 598.21(5).
       Iowa Code section 598.21(5) provides that the court shall divide all
       property, except inherited property or gifts received or expected by
       one party, equitably between the parties after considering certain
       factors. Inherited and gifted property can be subject to division if the
       court finds that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the
       other party or to the children of the marriage. An equitable
       distribution of marital property, based upon the factors in 598.21(5),
       does not require an equal division of assets.
               The legislature’s choice of the word “all” creates an expansive
       marital pot. Beyond the specific exclusion of gifts and inherited
       property, the statute makes no effort to include or exclude property
       from the divisible estate. For example, the statute also encompasses
       property owned by a party before the marriage. The circumstances
       and underlying nature of the included property are generally
       considered as factors that impact the task of determining an
       equitable division, along with all other relevant factors listed in
       section 598.21(5). However, future earnings are not considered
       property subject to division at the time of the dissolution.

In re Marriage of Miller, 966 N.W.2d 630, 635–36 (Iowa 2021) (cleaned up).

               1. 1967 Ford pickup

       Tara first objects to the court awarding her a 1967 Ford pickup truck valued

at $13,800. Tara argues she has “no interest in owning” the vehicle and asks that

we award it to Jamie instead and adjust the equalization payment accordingly. We

decline to do so. As the district court found, Tara can sell the vehicle if she desires.

No adjustment is required.

               2. Retention of $27,020

       Tara next complains that the court found she retained $21,000 in wages

and $6020 from a vehicle trade for her sole and separate use. We defer to the

district court’s finding on this issue.
                                         15

               3. Household items

         Tara also disputes the court’s valuation of the household property divided

between the parties. The court attributed a $10,000 value to the items Tara

received and a $1000 value to the items Jamie received. But Tara claims the items

should not be valued because each party took what they wanted, thus leading to

an equitable division. Tara asks that we remove the property from the overall

distribution and adjust the equalization payment accordingly. We find no error.

The parties did not agree that the items kept by each are of equal value, and the

values assigned by the district court are within the permissible range of the

evidence.

               4. Lighthouse Management

         Tara next contends the court erred in valuing Lighthouse Management,

another business the parties owned. The court awarded the property to Jamie and

assigned it a value of -$3035. Tara argues the property is worth $72,695.

         The evidence shows the property owned by Lighthouse Management has

a market value of $163,915. However, the property is encumbered by debt totaling

$166,949. As a result, the business has a negative net value. We affirm the district

court.

               5. America National Bank debt

         Finally, Tara contends the court erred by ordering the funds in the escrow

account of the parties’ marital home be used to pay a debt owed to America

National Bank. Tara argues the debt was incurred when SRI’s bank account was

overdrawn after it was closed. Tara claims that the debt should be removed from
                                         16

the list of marital debts because it was caused by Jamie’s actions and the court

awarded SRI to Jamie. We again defer to the district court and affirm.

       AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.

Buller, J., concurs; Schumacher, P.J., partially dissents.
                                         17

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge (dissenting in part).

       I concur in the majority opinion regarding the issues of dissipation of marital

assets, the property division provisions of the decree, and the remand to the district

court for child support recalculation. And I concur in the majority’s calculation of

the amount of Jamie’s income for child support and alimony purposes using the

historical data contained in the parties’ tax returns. I respectfully depart ways from

the majority opinion only in regard to the amount of traditional spousal support

ordered to be paid by Jamie, finding such too great given the relative incomes of

the parties, the existing marital debt, and relative tax consequences.

       I agree with the majority opinion that traditional alimony to Tara is

warranted, but based on recent supreme court cases and a change in the tax laws

concerning deductibility of alimony for tax purposes, I disagree with the amount of

alimony ordered in the majority opinion, given the income of $142,763 for Jamie

and $47,297 for Tara.

       Alimony payments are no longer tax deductible and are not considered

taxable income to the person receiving them. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L.

No. 115–97, § 11051, 131 Stat. 2054, 2089 (2017) (repealing 26 U.S.C. § 215).

“As a result, the economic impact of alimony on the paying spouse is greater today

than it has been in the past.” In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15, 21 (Iowa

2020). As noted by our supreme court, by way of example, in In re Marriage of

Gust, alimony was awarded that amounted to thirty-one percent of the difference

in income between the spouses. See 858 N.W.2d 402, 412 (Iowa 2015). In Mann,

the court went on to note that “[i]f [that] case were before [the court] today on the
                                         18

same facts, a [thirty-one percent] award would have a larger impact on the payor

spouse than in Gust because of the tax change.” Mann, 943 N.W.2d at 21.

       I would set Jamie’s traditional alimony at $1000.00 per month taking into

consideration all relevant factors. I concur in all other respects.