Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-262 / 11-0988 Filed June 13, 2012

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LARRY K. SOENKSEN AND MARY L. SOENKSEN Upon the Petition of LARRY K. SOENKSEN, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning MARY L. SOENKSEN, n/k/a MARY L. SPANGLER, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.

Mary Soenksen appeals the economic provisions of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Mark D. Fisher of Nidey, Wenzel, Erdahl, Tindal & Fisher, Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Thomas F. Ochs of Gray, Stefani & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.

2 VAITHESWARAN, P.J. Mary Soenksen appeals the economic provisions of a dissolution decree. She contends the district court (1) failed to divide and properly value shares of stock in a farm corporation and (2) should have awarded her a greater amount of spousal support for a longer period of time. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Mary and Larry Soenksen married in 1995. At the time of trial, Mary was fifty-five years old. She worked for a telephone company as a conference calling specialist, earning approximately $30,509 annually. She had a 401(k) retirement account valued at $56,927.68, against which she owed $5340.61. She also had a small interest-bearing pension from her employment with a previous telephone company that went bankrupt. Mary testified that she suffered from

neuromuscular disease, vertigo, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. Larry was forty-three years old at the time of trial and in good health. He worked on his parents' farm, earning $38,400 annually. He also drove a school bus, earning an additional $20,239.19 in 2010. He owned eight percent of the shares in the family farm corporation, Soenksen, Inc., contributed to a public employee retirement account, and had another small retirement account from prior employment. The parties purchased a home with funds Mary inherited and money Larry received as a gift from his parents. They owed $126,139.03 on the home. They also had joint credit card debts totaling approximately $47,000 as well as individual credit card debts.

3 Following trial, the district court divided the parties' property and debts, granting Mary the home valued at $138,000, along with the associated debt, as well as certain other property. The court ordered her to pay one of the joint credit card debts, as well as her individual debts, and ordered her retirement account to be divided. The court awarded her $600 per month in spousal support for a period of seven years. The court granted Larry certain personal property, held him responsible for the remaining joint credit card debt, as well as his own debt, and ordered his public employee retirement account divided. The court set aside to Larry his interest in Soenksen, Inc., which it valued at $41,204.24. Both parties filed motions for enlarged or amended findings and conclusions, which were denied in pertinent part. Only Mary filed a notice of appeal. II. Analysis A. Property Division

"Before dividing the marital property, a court must identify all of the assets held in the name of either or both parties as well as the debts owned by either or both of them." In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Iowa 2007). The district court identified Larry's shares of stock in Soenksen, Inc. as an asset in his name and valued this asset as follows: The general rule is that stock should be valued at market value if it can reasonably be ascertained. However, market value for the stock in a close corporation can rarely be ascertained. Thus its intrinsic value should be determined. A broad range of evidence is admissible to prove any fact calculated to affect its value. This includes evidence of the assets and liabilities of the corporation. In re Marriage of Moffatt, 279 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Iowa 1979). In Moffatt,

4 the court noted its prior approval of basing the value on net assets as done in [Mary's] Exhibit N-2. A twenty percent reduction for nonmarketability of stock especially where there are minority shares is also appropriate. See In re Marriage of Friedman, 466 N.W.2d 689, 691 (Iowa 1991). It is also not proper to consider tax consequences of a sale where a sale is not anticipated. Id. Thus, the Court finds the value of Larry's share of the stock to be $41,204.24. Mary contends "[t]he proper valuation of Soenksen, Inc. requires the use of the last credible financial data which was provided by the parties and submitted to the court (2009 tax returns) without the application of a discount for minority interest." She asserts that, had the court used this approach, the stock would have been valued at approximately $25,000 more than the court found. The law provides "much leeway to the trial court" in valuing a closely held corporation. In re Marriage of Dennis, 467 N.W.2d 806, 808 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991); see also Keener, 728 N.W.2d at 194. On our de novo review, we are convinced the district court's valuation was within the range of the evidence. The exhibit on which the court relied and which Mary now disparages was offered by her. She testified the exhibit was a "stock valuation sheet done by [the corporation's] book man." It listed the corporation's net worth as $672,987,

valued each share at $1.38, and assigned a minority share discount of 23 percent, resulting in a per share value for Larry's 39,416 shares of $1.06, or a total value of $41,780.96. The district court's value was within $600 of this

amount and, notably, used a minority discount that was less than the discount used in Mary's exhibit. See Friedman, 466 N.W.2d at 691 (approving use of twenty percent discount of shares in a closely held corporation); In re Marriage of Muelhaupt, 439 N.W.2d 656, 661 (Iowa 1989) (discounting minority interest in

5 closely held family corporation by twenty percent). equitably valued Larry's stock. Mary next contends the district court should have found that the shares of stock were jointly owned. She asserts "there was no expressed intent that Mary not share in the gift of the stock," as the "parties' relationship was good and they were happy" when the shares were given. In making this argument, Mary We conclude the court

concedes, as she must, that if the shares were given to Larry alone, they are not subject to division unless equity dictates otherwise. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LARRY K. SOENKSEN AND MARY L. SOENKSEN Upon the Petition o

Iowa Law