No. 5-917 / 05-0542Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed February 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J. Moon, Judge.
Petitioner-appellant Alexandra Pecharsky appeals that portion of the dissolution decree dissolving her nearly twenty-year marriage to respondent-appellee Vitalij Pecharsky that denied her request for alimony. AFFIRMED.
Andrew B. Howie of Hudson, Mallaney Shindler, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Christine R. Keenan of Jahn, Feilmeyer, Keenan Forbes, P.L.C., Ames, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
SACKETT, C.J.
The sole question in this appeal dissolving the nearly twenty-year marriage of petitioner-appellant Alexandra Pecharsky, and respondent-appellee Vitalij Pecharsky, is whether Alexandra was entitled to an award of spousal support or alimony. The district court said no and Alexandra on appeal challenges this finding. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The parties, now naturalized citizens of the United States of America, were married in 1986 in Lviv, Ukraine. Alexandra was forty-three years old at the time of trial. She has a Ph.D. in chemistry and has been employed by Iowa State University at the Ames Laboratory since the summer of 1994. Vitalij was fifty years old at the time of trial. He, too, has a Ph.D. in chemistry and works for Iowa State University at the Ames Laboratory. He is a full professor at the University and a senior scientist at the laboratory.
The parties had one child, Nadya, born in June of 1987. Nadya was a senior in high school at the time of trial in February 2005. The parties agreed on their responsibility for child support until Nadya reached her majority and also agreed on a post-secondary education subsidy. Both had retirement accounts, a modest joint savings account, and equity in their personal residence of just over $100,000.
The district court ordered their retirement accounts equally divided, gave the personal residence to Vitalij, ordered him to pay Alexandra her equity, and divided the savings account of about $26,000. In addition, Vitalij was ordered to pay $4,500 towards Alexandra’s attorney fees. The district court ordered that neither party pay the other alimony. In rejecting Alexandra’s claim she should have alimony the district court said:
An award of alimony is not justified in these circumstances. Alexandra has a doctorate degree in chemistry. She has a position with the Ames Lab that pays her in excess of $50,000.00 per year together with benefits. She is over-qualified for her current position and has sought reclassification of her responsibilities, which translates into more money if she is successful. She has received one-half of the marital assets, has cash sufficient to make a down payment on a home and still have a tidy nest egg for future needs. She is relatively debt free.
Alexandra contends she should have alimony. Her principal arguments are that (1) this was a long-term marriage, (2) Vitalij makes more money than she does, (3) she took several years from the work force to care for the parties’ daughter, (4) she contributed significantly to Vitalij’s success and wealth, (5) her income will not support the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage, and (6) Vitalij has the ability to pay.
Vitalij’s main arguments against paying alimony are (1) Alexandra is as educated as he, (2) she is gainfully employed at a good salary with excellent benefits, (3) she is over-qualified for the job she holds and has opportunities for more gainful employment, (4) he had his Ph.D. at the time of their marriage but she received hers after the marriage, (5) her career was not jeopardized by responsibilities for child care, (6) Alexandra is seven years younger than he and will have more working years to contribute to her retirement, (6) Alexandra has been extravagant with money during the marriage, (7) Alexandra received one-half of all their assets including one-half of all retirement accounts, and (8) he was ordered to pay $4,500 towards her attorney fees that she had already paid.
Any form of alimony is discretionary with the court. In re Marriage of Ask, 551 N.W.2d 643, 645 (Iowa 1996); In re Marriage of Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486, 490 (Iowa 1995). Before awarding alimony the district court is required to consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (2005). These factors include (1) the length of the marriage, (2) the age and physical and emotional health of the parties, (3) the property distribution made in the dissolution decree, (4) the educational levels of the parties, (5) the earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, (6) the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting at the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, (7) the tax consequences to each party, (8) any mutual agreements by the parties concerning financial or service contributions, (9) the provisions of any antenuptial agreement, and (10) any other factors the court determines relevant on a case-by-case basis. Iowa Code §598.21(3); see In re Marriage of Crotty, 584 N.W.2d 714, 719
(Iowa Ct.App. 1998). An alimony award is justified when the distribution of the assets of the marriage does not equalize the inequities and economic disadvantages suffered in marriage by the party seeking the alimony, who also has a need for support. In re Marriage of Sychra, 552 N.W.2d 907, 908 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) In re Marriage of Weiss, 496 N.W.2d 785, 787-88 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Whether spousal support is justified is dependent upon the facts of each case. See In re Marriage of Fleener, 247 N.W.2d 219, 220 (Iowa 1976).
To assess the issue we look not only to the current situation but also to the history of the marriage. At the time of the marriage, Vitalij had a Ph.D. and was an associate professor, while Alexandra was working towards an advanced degree and was an assistant scientist at Lviv State University in the Ukraine. After Nadya’s birth Alexandra took advantage of the law in the Ukraine that provided for her to take about a year off following her child’s birth. Three months were at full pay and the remaining months were at partial pay. After that year Alexandra returned to work full time. Nadya was cared for by her parents and paternal grandparents. In 1989 Vitalij came to the United States for ten months but returned to the Ukraine. Towards the end of 1992 he was offered a job at Iowa State University as a visiting scientist. He moved to the United States in April of 1992; Alexandra and Nadya followed in July of that year. Alexandra also found a job with Iowa State University. Both parties continue to assume responsibilities for the care of their daughter.
In contrast to many dissolutions, neither party leaves this marriage economically disadvantaged. During the marriage neither party made substantial career sacrifices in order to assume child care responsibilities. They both have the same degree. They both have excellent jobs with good benefits. They both have participated in raising Nadya and they agreed to share her custodial care during the short time until she reached her majority. They both will be contributing to Nadya’s college expenses. Vitalij has made more money than Alexandra during the marriage. She is benefiting from this because the retirement accounts were divided equally. Vitalij is seven years older than Alexandra and he has a higher salary.
The parties’ 2003 federal and Iowa state tax returns were in evidence. The state return shows Alexandra had wages of $44,516 and Vitalij had wages of $105,251. The only other income they report for that year was $335 apiece for taxable interest on another investment. For purposes of setting child support the parties agreed Vitalij’s income was $120,136 a year. Alexandra showed her annual income to be $54,257.52. Both parties have the opportunity to enhance their salaries with consulting and other things.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. We award no appellate attorney fees.
AFFIRMED.