Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-897 / 06-2068 Filed February 13, 2008

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TRACY LYNN HOFFMAN AND ERNST FRANKLIN HOFFMAN Upon the Petition of TRACY LYNN HOFFMAN, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning ERNST FRANKLIN HOFFMAN, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don C. Nickerson, Judge. The respondent appeals and the petitioner cross-appeals from the decree dissolving their marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Catherine Levine, Des Moines, for appellant. Alexander Rhoads and Stacey Warren of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

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

2 VOGEL, J. Ernst Hoffman appeals and Tracy Hoffman cross-appeals from the decree dissolving their marriage. Both parties argue the district court erred regarding the economic provisions of the decree. Because we find that the economic

provisions of the decree are equitable, we affirm. We modify other provisions the parties have agreed to since the filing of the appeal. I. Background Facts and Proceedings In October of 1996, Ernst and Tracy were married in Altoona, Iowa. The marriage resulted in two children: Madyson (born in 1999) and Zane (born in 2002). On August 19, 2005, Tracy filed a petition seeking to dissolve the

marriage. A hearing was held on the petition on July 18 and 19, 2006. The record revealed the following facts. At the time of the parties' marriage, Ernst had completed medical school and was beginning his first year of residency in emergency medicine in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tracy, who prior to the marriage obtained a nursing degree from Iowa Methodist School of Nursing, worked full-time as a registered nurse. Once Ernst completed his residency, he obtained employment as an emergency room physician and his income increased substantially. After the parties' first child was born in 1999, Tracy reduced her schedule to working two or three days a week. The parties also owned several horses throughout their marriage and were involved in rodeo, barrel racing, and roping activities. Due to Ernst's employment, the parties relocated several times. In 2003, Ernst and Tracy returned to Iowa, to be closer to family. Upon their return, Ernst obtained employment as an emergency room physician, which requires him to

3 work twelve-hour shifts approximately twelve times a month. Tracy obtained part-time employment as a registered nurse. She works two or three days a week, which allows her to care for their children. Each party remained employed in these positions at the time of trial. Evidence demonstrated that Ernst's gross income was $273,281.06 in 2005 while Tracy's gross income was approximately $14,000 but anticipated to increase to $25,000 in 2006. The district court entered temporary orders regarding child and spousal support, custody of the children, and visitation. Additionally, the court ordered the family home to be sold, which was accomplished in February of 2006. Subsequently, Tracy purchased a new house on five acres that is located near the elementary school Madyson attends. The property includes a barn large enough to accommodate the horses and pony. Before trial, the parties stipulated to joint legal custody with Tracy having physical care. They agreed to a visitation schedule, which granted each the "right of first refusal" to care for the children when the other was unavailable. They further agreed that Ernst was to pay $2000 per month for child support and Tracy was to claim the two income tax exemptions allowed for the children. On September 18, 2006, following a two-day trial, the court entered a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. An amended and substituted decree was

entered on October 17. Among other things and pertinent to the issues raised on appeal, the district court divided the joint property and debt between the parties, ordered Ernst to pay spousal support to Tracy in the amount of $2000 per month for five years, and awarded Tracy $20,000 in trial attorney fees.

4 II. Scope of Review We review the provisions of a dissolution decree de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; 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." Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 247 (quoting In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Iowa 2003)). We review the district court's award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. Id. III. Spousal Support An award of spousal support is not an absolute right, but instead depends on the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Dieger, 584 N.W.2d 567, 570 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). Any form of spousal support is

discretionary with the court. In re Marriage of Ask, 551 N.W.2d 643, 645 (Iowa 1996). When determining whether spousal support is appropriate, the court must consider the statutory factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.21A (Supp. 2005). These factors include: (1) the length of the marriage, (2) the age,

physical, and emotional health of the parties, (3) the property division, (4) the educational level of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time the dissolution action is commenced, (5) the earning capacity of the party seeking support, and (6) the feasibility of the party seeking support becoming selfsupporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. Iowa Code

Download 7-897.pdf

Iowa Law