Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-768 / 11-0445 Filed December 21, 2011 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RACHEL A. MCDERMOTT AND STEPHEN J. MCDERMOTT Upon the Petition of RACHEL A. MCDERMOTT, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning STEPHEN J. MCDERMOTT, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Ackley, Judge.

Stephen McDermott appeals from a decree dissolving his marriage to Rachel McDermott. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Jennifer A. Clemens-Conlon of Clemens, Walters, Conlon & Meyer, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant. Susan M. Hess of Hammer, Simon & Jensen, Dubuque, for appellee.

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

2

SACKETT, C.J. Stephen McDermott appeals from a December 2010 decree dissolving his marriage to Rachel McDermott. Stephen contends the property division was not equitable and his child support obligation should be modified. We affirm and modify the property division and the child support. SCOPE OF REVIEW. Our review is de novo. See In re Marriage of Zinger, 243 N.W.2d 639, 640 (Iowa 1976). In undertaking our review, we

examine the entire record and decide anew the issues properly presented. See In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981). Although this court is not bound by the findings of the trial court, we give weight to them. Id. BACKGROUND. The parties were married in June of 1997 at which time Rachel was twenty-three years old, and Stephen was thirty-four. Stephen was farming with his family at the time of marriage and brought to the marriage some $675,000 in assets including cash, farm machinery, crops, and livestock. Rachel was working as a physical therapist, and brought a $35,000 savings account to the marriage. The couple had six children in less than a decade. 1 Rachel left outside employment at the time of the birth of their first child. She was, during a period of the marriage, able to improve her credentials which assisted her when she re-entered the job market after the couple separated. Stephen continued farming during the marriage and was farming at the time of the dissolution. The family lived on the income from the farming operation. Stephen received

substantial assistance from his father in the farming operation and occasional

1

The oldest child was born in January of 1999 and the youngest in May of 2007.

3

help from other family members. Neither his father nor other relatives were paid for their assistance. Stephen's parents, siblings, and extended family made

efforts to help Stephen succeed in farming. In addition to the free labor, his father sold a farm to the couple for a price below market value. The sale was made with Stephen's siblings' consent and with the understanding Stephen would inherit nothing further from his parents. Stephen and Rachel purchased a farm on contract from Stephen's uncle Patrick, and when Patrick died shortly after the transaction was finalized, the couple found Patrick had left them the balance due on the contract. In addition, Rita, Stephen's aunt, paid the $53,000 inheritance tax due so Stephen and Rachel received the land free and clear from any encumbrances. Stephen also was able to use machinery owned by family members without cost. At the time of the dissolution, the parties had managed to accumulate a net worth of over two million dollars, in large part because of the farmland acquired from Stephen's family members, which had greatly increased in value. The parties entered into a pretrial stipulation approved by the district court. The stipulation provided that the parties agreed (1) to share physical care of the children, (2) on the valuation of certain assets, (3) on the valuation of farm equipment owned by Stephen before marriage, (4) on provisions for the children's health insurance2 and medical expenses,3 (5) on the division of the dependency exemptions for the children on federal and state income tax returns,

2 3

Rachel would maintain the insurance and Stephen would pay her one-half the cost. These were to be divided equally.

4

(6) no alimony would be awarded, (7) they would pay their own attorney fees, and (8) they would split the costs of the action fifty/fifty. The district court was left to address other issues including (1) the division of certain assets and debts, (2) income tax consequences, and (3) the amount of child support to be paid. The district court gave the farming operation to Stephen, a house purchased after separation to Rachel, and held her responsible for the balance owing on the home as well as some small debts. Stephen was then ordered to pay Rachel $1,087,716 to equalize the property division. The sum was to be paid over either a three or five year schedule with interest accruing on the unpaid balance at the statutory rate. The district court said it arrived at the equalization payment by totaling the appraised value of the land, crops, and farm equipment. Stephen was given the option of paying it in three equal annual installments, or by making an initial payment of $500,000 with the balance to be paid in five equal installments. In fixing child support the district court found Stephen, because he had no debt, had an average annual income of $55,000 to $70,000, and Rachel earned an annual salary of $65,000. The district court then set the parties' child support obligations that resulted in Rachel being ordered to pay $219 monthly for six children. The amount was to reduce as children no longer qualified for support, and ultimately to reduce to ninety dollars a month when only one child was subject support.

5

PROPERTY DIVISION. Stephen contends the property division was not equitable considering (1) the property he brought to the marriage, (2) the gifts and substantial financial support and other help his extended family has given the couple, (3) the equalization award made by the trial court would force him to sell his farmland because his current operation will not generate the cash flow to allow him to pay Rachel's judgment, and (4) the tax consequences of a sale of the real estate and farm assets need be considered. He argues that his

premarital savings were depleted over the years, and if it were not for the labor and financial help from his family who were focused on helping him keep the farm operation viable, the parties would have a minimal net worth. He also

contends the district court should not have considered growing crops in valuing the farmland as they were in actuality his income, and not assets of the parties to be divided. He notes Rachel has her income, and she has made no contribution to the crops that were in the field at the time of the dissolution hearing. Rachel contends the division of assets is equitable. She advances that the concessions on the price of the land and gifts made by Stephen's family were made to her too. She does recognize she would not have benefited in that regard had she not been married to Stephen, and that the land was given so that Stephen could farm it. She also contends we cannot consider the tax

consequences of a sale because there was no sale. The distribution of the property should be made in consideration of the criteria codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (2009). See In re Marriage of Estlund, 344 N.W.2d 276, 280 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983). There are no hard and fast

6

rules governing economic provisions in dissolution actions. In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984). Precedent is of little value on these issues; our decision must depend upon the particular facts relevant to each issue. Id. "The basic rule is that the property division . . . of a dissolution decree must be equitable to both parties." In re Marriage of Wiedemann, 402 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1987); see also In re Marriage of Callenius, 309 N.W.2d 510, 514 (Iowa 1981). "Iowa courts do not require an equal division or percentage

distribution." In re Marriage of Miller, 552 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). Our determination turns on what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. Id. CONSIDERATION OF TAX CONSQUENCES. We first look to the tax consequences of the district court's decision. In the division of property the tax consequences to a party may be taken into account. Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RACHEL A. MCDERMOTT AND STEPHEN J. MCDERMOTT Upon the Peti

Iowa Law