No. 04-0841.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Stephen C. Clarke, Judge.
Holly Porter appeals from the denial of her request for additional spousal support. AFFIRMED.
Jay P. Roberts of Roberts, Stevens Lekar, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
Kevin D. Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles
Demro, P.L.C., Cedar Falls, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
HECHT, J.
Holly Porter appeals from the denial of her request for additional spousal support. We now affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Michael and Holly Porter had been married for twenty-seven years at the time of their dissolution and had two adult children who were living with Michael. Both Michael and Holly worked outside the home during their marriage. Michael currently earns a salary of $45,000 per year. Holly is currently unemployed as a result of an allergy and skin condition that she contends prevents her from pursuing employment in her chosen field of cosmetology. The couple did not accumulate substantial assets other than the marital home. That home has a market value of $127,500, but is encumbered by a mortgage of approximately $97,000.
The district court’s property division awarded the marital home to Michael. Michael was ordered to refinance the home in his name and from the proceeds of the refinancing, pay Holly $11,000 cash for her share of the home’s equity. The district court also ordered Michael to pay Holly rehabilitative alimony in the form of medical insurance coverage for a period of three years. Holly filed a motion requesting the district court to reconsider the alimony award, citing the disparity in income between the parties and Holly’s limited job prospects. The district court denied the motion and Holly now appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review the financial aspects of a dissolution decree de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We review the entire record and adjudicate anew all economic issues properly presented on appeal In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981).
III. Discussion.
Holly maintains on appeal that it is inequitable to deny her request for additional alimony based on the gross income disparity revealed in the record and because Holly’s skin allergy condition prevents her from obtaining employment that would enable her to maintain “a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.” Iowa Code §598.21(3)(f). We disagree.
We begin our analysis by noting alimony is not an absolute right; rather its award depends on the particular circumstances of the parties involved, including the former couple’s standard of living. In re Marriage of Starks, 542 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). In weighing the equities, a district court prompted to make an award of spousal support is permitted to evaluate not only the current disparity in annual income between the parties, but also the earning potential of each spouse. In re Marriage of Estlund, 344 N.W.2d 276, 281 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983). In assessing the earning potential of the parties, the district court may look to prior employment history as a guide In re Marriage of Fynaardt, 545 N.W.2d 890, 894 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). Although Holly has not been employed in her chosen field of cosmetology since January 2003 and contends she has no earning potential beyond minimum wage, there is evidence in the record from which to conclude her earning potential is greater than claimed. The record is devoid of medical evidence tending to prove Holly was required to refrain from all work in the field of cosmetology. Additionally, no medical evidence was produced suggesting Holly is disqualified from employment that would not require exposure to the specific allergens to which she apparently reacts. We note Holly had previously managed a retail store for five years.
In evaluating the need for additional rehabilitative alimony, we must also consider the property division. In re Marriage of Griffin, 356 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Iowa App. 1984). We find the property division ordered by the district court is equitable. When considered with the property division, the rehabilitative alimony award requiring Michael to pay Holly’s medical insurance for a term of three years is also equitable. We therefore decline Holly’s request for additional spousal support.
AFFIRMED.