Court Opinion

ID: 9533052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:27:50.598032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:54.220050
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, C. J.
(concurring specially)
I, too, would affirm the district court’s decision. Gary’s petition to modify his alimony award based on Linda’s cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex should be denied. I applaud the attempt of Judge Vogel’s opinion to (1) provide clearer direction on the issue that has made for struggles in the courts over whether and when *705cohabitation should terminate alimony, and (2) clarify the language addressing the issue contained in In re Marriage of Wendell, 581 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa App.1998) (Sackett and Huitink, JJ., specially concur). That specific language provides in making the determination a court, “strikes an appropriate balance between the interest of the parties ... consistent with our prevailing companion principles and the underlying policy of law.” Id. at 201.
I continue to be troubled by a decision on modification of alimony or spousal support awards being premised on principles formulated at a time and place in society (1) where women were denied employment based on their sex and/or martial status, and (2) when alimony was defined as “an allowance for maintenance of the wife.” See Russell v. Russell, 4 Greene 26, 29 (Iowa 1853).
The Supreme Court, in establishing reimbursement alimony, see In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 1989), has admirably partially addressed what I consider the unfairness of prior conclusions that a former spouse only needed alimony until he or she found another spouse to support him or her. Id. at 62-66. Yet, the aged principles continue to be associated with awards of what we now define as “traditional alimony.”
The muddle that exists on continuation of alimony after remarriage or cohabitation only advances future litigation and threatens the financial security of divorced persons.
I believe we should embark on a path where alimony is awarded only when the economic issues cannot be resolved through the division of property and pension rights. In such cases, alimony would only be awarded where there are insufficient property and pension rights to reach an equitable division. In most cases, this would be limited to situations where there is little property and one spouse has sacrificed his or her own career opportunities by assuming responsibility for home and/or children and alimony has to be awarded from future earnings. Even in such cases, alimony should not necessarily be a lifelong substance but should be determined after considering career opportunities available to the disadvantaged spouse. In that situation, there should be no reason to rob the disadvantaged spouse of a fair economic award because he or she decides to either remarry or just live with someone else who provides contribution to the household and the disadvantaged spouse. As long as we continue to engage in confusing rhetoric, we will only continue to leave divorced persons with substantial uncertainty to their economic future.