Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-028 / 06-0455 Filed March 14, 2007

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KURT KLIMESH AND AMY KLIMESH Upon the Petition of KURT KLIMESH, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning AMY KLIMESH, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, John Bauercamper, Judge.

Kurt Klimesh appeals the district court's ruling in his dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Kevin Kennedy of Kennedy & Kennedy, New Hampton, for appellant.

Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Stochl, Braun & Churbuck, Charles City, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Mahan, JJ.

2 MAHAN, J. Kurt Klimesh appeals the district court's ruling in his dissolution decree. He argues the district court erred in awarding joint physical care of the children and in dividing the parties' assets and debts. We affirm as modified. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Kurt and Amy Klimesh were married in April 1990. They have two sons and a daughter, born in September 1994, October 1996, and November 2000, respectively. Kurt filed the petition for dissolution on March 24, 2005. Kurt was thirty-eight years old at the time of trial and in good health. He works 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. at the Dura Automotive plant. His annual gross wage income is approximately $38,500. Amy was thirty-five years old at the time of trial and also in good health. She operates a day care service with nominal earnings. imputed her an income of $16,000. While the couple was married, they lived on an acreage near Kurt's parents. Since they have separated, Amy has moved into a rental home in town, near the marital home. They shared joint physical care of the children prior to the dissolution decree. This dissolution is marked by discord between the parties. Kurt argues the impetus for the divorce was Amy's affair with Brad, a family friend. Amy responds that Kurt had affairs during the marriage and that many different problems led to the divorce. We will not repeat the myriad of offenses of which each accuses the other except where relevant to our legal analysis. Unfortunately, we must note at the outset that the parties' hatred for one another The district court

3 appears to have influenced their children to the point of endangering their safety. The only issues on appeal are the children's physical care and the division of property. 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. III. Merits A. Physical Care Kurt argues joint physical care is not in the children's best interest. He requests primary physical care of the children. Amy, on the other hand, claims joint physical care will enable the children to have maximum continuing contact with both parents. We review numerous factors in determining the physical care of a child. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KURT KLIMESH AND AMY KLIMESH Upon the Petition of KURT KLI

Iowa Law