Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 6-788 / 06-0348 Filed December 28, 2006

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANJANA KUMAR AND MANISH KUMAR Upon the Petition of ANJANA KUMAR, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning MANISH KUMAR, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark D. Cleve, Judge.

Manish Kumar appeals the district court's ruling in his dissolution proceeding. Anjana Kumar cross-appeals. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Murray Bell, Davenport, for appellant.

Dennis Jasper, Bettendorf, for appellee.

Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

2 MAHAN, P.J. Manish Kumar appeals the district court's ruling in his dissolution proceeding. He argues the district court erred in awarding physical care of the parties' child to Anjana and in dividing the parties' assets. Anjana Kumar crossappeals. She argues the district court erred in (1) dividing the parties' assets; (2) failing to find a history of domestic abuse; (3) failing to issue a permanent protective order against Manish; (4) scheduling visitation; and (5) finding Anjana in contempt. We affirm on both appeals. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Manish and Anjana were married in May 2001. They have one child, a son born February 22, 2003. December 17, 2004. Anjana filed a petition for dissolution on

The court filed an injunction on December 27, 2004,

ordering both parties to refrain from spending, liquidating, disposing, lending, alienating, or changing any money or assets. Anjana was also granted a Trial took place on

protective order against Manish on March 9, 2005.

November 2 and 3, 2005. Custody and the division of assets were the primary issues contested. Manish was thirty-four years old at the time of trial. When he and Anjana married, he was an established dermatologist in Indiana. He moved his practice to Bettendorf in June 2004. The court determined his income to be $200,000 per year. He is in good health. Anjana was thirty-three years old at the time of trial. She is an Indian citizen and in the process of obtaining permanent legal residency in the United States. At the time of the parties' marriage, she was enrolled in a

3 gastroenterology fellowship program at the University of Iowa. Through the early part of the marriage, she lived and worked in Iowa City. After giving birth to the couple's child, she took a leave of absence from her fellowship and lived with Manish in Indiana for six weeks. She then returned to her fellowship. Six weeks later, she took the couple's child to Iowa City to live with her. The district court determined the couple made trips between Indiana and Iowa City, with Manish making more trips than Anjana. Upon finishing her fellowship, Anjana moved to Bettendorf to live with Manish in September 2004. She took a position with Gastroenterology Associates. The court determined her income to be $200,000 per year. Both Anjana and Manish claim the other was physically, verbally, and sexually abusive throughout the marriage. The district court refused to issue a permanent protective order, determining that both parties had "embellished" their accounts of abuse. It also determined that the parties' filings did not establish a history of abuse for the purposes of awarding custody. Instead, the court

ordered joint legal custody, with Anjana receiving physical care. Manish was awarded visitation every Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. He also received six weeks of summer visitation, including four uninterrupted weeks if he chooses. While Manish has summer visitation, Anjana is to be afforded the same visitation schedule he has with the child while the child is in her care. Further, Anjana receives four uninterrupted weeks of summer visitation. shared. Holidays are also

In odd-numbered years, Anjana has the child for President's Day

weekend, Memorial Day weekend, Labor Day weekend, Christmas Eve, and

4 New Year's Eve. Manish receives visitation on Easter weekend, July 4th holiday, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Eve. The holiday schedule is reversed in even-numbered years. The court also divided the parties' assets. The facts of the distribution are addressed as needed below. Both parties appeal. II. Standard of Review We review dissolution decrees de novo. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006). Though we are not bound by them, we give weight to the district court's factual findings and credibility determinations. Id. We review the contempt ruling for errors at law. In re Marriage of Spears, 529 N.W.2d 299, 304 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Contempt for violating a court order requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a willful violation of an order. Id. III. Merits A. Physical Care and Custody Manish argues the district court erred in awarding Anjana physical care of their son. Anjana claims the district court erred when it failed to find a history of domestic abuse and refused to grant her sole legal custody. We review numerous factors in determining which parent should have physical care of a child. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANJANA KUMAR AND MANISH KUMAR Upon the Petition of ANJANA

Iowa Law