Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-043 / 08-0732 Filed March 26, 2009 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF GRANT C. BRINTNALL AND LINDA K. BRINTNALL Upon the Petition of GRANT CHRISTOPHER BRINTNALL, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning LINDA K. BRINTNALL, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Michael J. Moon, Judge.

Respondent appeals the child custody and financial provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to petitioner. AFFIRMED.

John J. Wood of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant. Barry S. Kaplan and Melissa A. Nine of Kaplan, Frese & Nine, L.L.P., Marshalltown, for appellee.

Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Potterfield and Mansfield, JJ.

2

SACKETT, C.J. Linda Brintnall appeals from the decree dissolving her fifteen-year marriage to Grant Brintnall. She contends (1) she should have been named primary custodian of the parties' three children, (2) the children should not have been placed in the parties' joint physical care, and (3) if the award of joint physical care is approved we should modify the decree and adopt her proposed schedule for exchanging the children. She also contends the district court's

division of assets was not equitable. We affirm. SCOPE OF REVIEW. Equity proceedings, such as dissolution decrees, are reviewed de novo on appeal. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage of

McCurnin, 681 N.W.2d 322, 327 (Iowa 2004). BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS. The parties, both born in 1959, were married in 1993. Grant is a middle school teacher in the Marshalltown Community School District and earns about $68,000 annually. He holds a

bachelor and master's degree from Iowa State University and has earned fortyfive hours towards a doctorate. Linda, a half-time teacher in the same school district, earns about $30,000 annually. She holds a bachelor and master's

degree from the University of Northern Iowa and has earned forty-five hours towards a doctorate. If employed in education on a full-time basis her earnings would be comparable to Grant's. The parties have two sons, born in 1998 and 2000, respectively, and a daughter, born in 2002. In the summer of 2007 Grant filed the petition for dissolution of their marriage. He sought joint physical care of the children and an equitable division

3

of assets. Linda answered, denying that the children should be placed in the parties' joint physical care. She contended that the children should be in her primary physical care. The matter came on for trial in March of 2008. The district court entered a decree in April of the same year. The court found Grant and Linda both to be exceptional parents and the children to be bright, articulate, well-behaved, and fun-loving, who were faring well under the circumstances. The court noted the parties had agreed they should have joint legal custody of the children. After analyzing the applicable law and considering the facts, the court concluded the parties should have shared physical care alternating on a weekly basis. The court found such an arrangement to be in the best long-range interest of the children. Grant was ordered to pay child support to Linda of $658.86 a month. Medical support and college support issues were addressed. The district court divided the parties' assets and in doing so considered inherited and gifted property, property brought to the marriage, and property accumulated during the marriage. The division reached by the district court resulted in Grant receiving equities of $336,950 and Linda receiving equities of $290,307. Grant was

awarded the additional amount based on the district court's determination he brought more assets to the marriage than did Linda. CUSTODY. Linda contends she should be the primary care parent and if she is not so named then the arrangement for exchanging the children should be modified. Grant contends the district court was correct in awarding joint physical care and the district court should be affirmed in all respects on this issue.

4

When considering issues of child custody we give weight to the fact findings of the district court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). This is

because the trial court has a firsthand opportunity to hear the evidence and view the witnesses. In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Iowa 1992). Prior cases have little precedential value with respect to custodial issues, and this court must make its decision on the particular circumstances unique to each case. In re Marriage of Rierson, 537 N.W.2d 806, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The district court ordered joint physical care and found it to be in the best interest of the children. Only if joint physical care is not warranted would we choose a primary caretaker who would be solely responsible for decisions concerning the children's routine care. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 691 (Iowa 2007). Consequently, the first issue we need address is whether on our de novo review we agree with the district court's conclusion that joint physical care is in the children's best interest. "Joint physical care" means an award of physical care of a minor child to both joint legal custodial parents where both parents have rights and responsibilities toward the child. Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF GRANT C. BRINTNALL AND LINDA K. BRINTNALL Upon the Petiti

Iowa Law