Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-760 / 11-0125 Filed November 23, 2011 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRENT JOSEPH RYLAND AND GLORIA RAQUEL RYLAND Upon the Petition of BRENT JOSEPH RYLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning GLORIA RAQUEL RYLAND, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, John G. Linn, Judge.

Brent Ryland appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Gloria Ryland. AFFIRMED.

Curtis Dial of Law Office of Curtis Dial, Keokuk, for appellant. Marlis J. Robberts of Robberts & Kirkman, L.L.L.P., Burlington, for appellee.

Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.

2

SACKETT, C.J. Brent Ryland appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Gloria Ryland. Brent contends the district court erred in failing to award the parties shared physical care of their minor son, born in 2005; the district court made an inequitable division of a medical bill; and it should not have awarded Gloria attorney fees. The facts support an award of physical care to Gloria. The

division of the medical bill was equitable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Gloria trial attorney fees. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS. Brent and Gloria were married in May of 2005. They have a son who was born in March of 2005. Brent filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage in September of 2009. The matter came on for trial in November of 2010. At the time of the hearing Brent was twenty-nine years old and Gloria was twenty-five years old. Brent was in good health. Gloria had some health problems and had been diagnosed as having lupus. Brent, who is a high school graduate, had been working for Roquette America, Inc. in Keokuk since 2005. At the time of the dissolution hearing in November of 2010, he was on unemployment because he and his coworkers were striking and had been locked out of the workplace. As a result, Brent was receiving unemployment compensation of about $390 a week, which translated to an annual income of approximately $20,000.1 Gloria, who had stayed home and cared for the parties' child and an older child of hers from a prior relationship,

1

His annual income prior to the strike was estimated at over $60,000.

3

entered the workplace. She was working at a nursing home. Her annual income was about $15,000 a year. The parties agreed to a division of their assets and certain liabilities, which the district court approved in its decree. In October of 2010, Gloria had become ill and was hospitalized after the parties' separation and during the time Brent was on strike. She accrued a hospital bill in the amount of $20,000. Because of the strike and lockout there was a question what part, if any, of the bill would be paid by the health insurance Brent had through his employer. The parties both sought primary physical care of their son, with Brent contending that if the district court did not award primary physical care to him, the court should enter a decree ordering the parties to share custody of their son. The district court found Gloria should have physical care of the parties' child. Specified visitation was provided for Brent. Brent was ordered to pay child

support of $73.85 a week and $15.60 a week for medical support until such time as the lockout ended. At that time the court found that Brent should pay $161.85 a week and he should be required to carry health insurance through Roquette for the benefit of the parties' child. Support was to continue until the child reached eighteen, or became emancipated, unless the child was engaged full-time in completing high school graduation or equivalent requirements and if the child was expected to complete said requirements before he reaches the age of nineteen, then support should continue through high school graduation or the equivalent requirements.

4

The court approved the parties' agreement as to division of assets and debt and this is not in dispute.2 The court found the parties had agreed they would be equally responsible for all unpaid medical bills with the exception of the $20,000 in medical bills incurred during the month of October 2010 due to Gloria's medical emergency. The court found that any of those expenses not covered by medical insurance3 should be allocated 80% to Brent and ordered Brent to pay $2000 towards Gloria's attorney fees. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW. We review dissolution cases de novo. In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Iowa 2009); In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006). "Although we decide the issues raised on appeal anew, we give weight to the trial court's factual findings, especially with respect to the credibility of the witnesses." In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Iowa 2003). "Precedent is of little value as our determination must depend on the facts of the particular case." In re Marriage of White, 537 N.W.2d 744, 746 (Iowa 1995). Instead we base our decision primarily on the particular circumstances of the parties before us. In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983). III. SHARED CARE. Brent contends the parties should have been

awarded shared physical care of their son. Brent contends in assessing this issue we need to look at Iowa Code section 598.41(5) (2009), for in this section the Iowa legislature has set forth a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in

2

It appears that other than a pension plan and an unencumbered vehicle, the parties had few assets. 3 It appeared that perhaps some of the expenses could be covered by the couple by seeking to be covered under COBRA.

5

custody decisions. See In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007). Brent contends we should also look at certain factors set forth in Hansen such as the suitability of the parents, the quality of parental communications, the geographic proximity, and the safety of the child. See id. Brent also points out that the Iowa legislature has set forth factors to be considered when one party requests shared physical care. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRENT JOSEPH RYLAND AND GLORIA RAQUEL RYLAND Upon the Peti

Iowa Law