Court Opinion

ID: 9591859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:08:25.094686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:52.234711
License: Public Domain

REYNOLDSON, Justice
(dissenting from division I but concurring in result).
I concur in the dissent filed by Justice UHLENHOPP. In so doing I am motivated not only by the reasons he assigns for dissenting but by the conviction the majority opinion will create confusion in' trials of dissolution cases, now numbering approximately 21 per day.
It is likely some trial judges will construe this decision to mean no evidence which might tend to indicate fault for the marriage breakdown will be admissible in the consideration of property settlement and alimony. In short, it may be assumed evidence of bad conduct is not permitted.
On the other hand, it is clear that evidence of good conduct is invited. Majority retains the eighth and tenth postmarital criteria laid down in Schants. Note the language in In re Harrington, Iowa, 199 N.W.2d 351, filed this date: “The fact she contributed to a happy marriage for ten years both by her labor and attention cannot be denied under this record.”
No guidelines are established to assist the bench and bar in the typical situation in which the conduct of one party can only be viewed in the light reflected by the conduct of the other. Assume a husband who returns home each night, intoxicated, to beat and humiliate his wife. Assume she is a saintly person who as an extraordinary sacrifice in the preservation of the marital relationship (Schants criterion four), endures this for years.
How can the wife’s conduct be weighed without reference to the husband’s conduct? If evidence of his conduct is going to be admissible for the limited purpose of showing a fact situation permitted to be disclosed by Schants criteria eight or ten, we should say so now. If it is inadmissible for that limited purpose, the opinion should so state and admit criteria eight and ten of Schants have also been emasculateA