No. 5-501 / 05-0163Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court Pottawattamie County, J.C. Irvin, Judge.
Husband appeals from the property settlement portion of the decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Lloyd Bergantzel, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Michael Gallner, Council Bluffs, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
Darin Poyser appeals from the property division provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Lisa Poyser. He asserts the district court failed to equitably distribute the parties’ assets and debts. Upon our de novo review, we modify the decree to reduce the amount of the equalizing payment Darin was ordered to make to Lisa. The remainder of the court’s decree is affirmed.
I.Background Facts and Proceedings
Darin and Lisa were married in 1989. They have two minor children. Lisa filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in June 2003 seeking custody of the parties’ two children, child and spousal support and an equitable property division. The parties were unable to resolve their differences and this case was tried to the court. Lisa appeared personally and with her attorney. Darin appeared pro se.
At the time of the trial, Darin and Lisa were thirty-eight years old. Both parties were employed and contributed to the marriage. The record fails to disclose whether either party brought property into the marriage. The record also does not reveal whether they owned any real estate.
The court entered a dissolution decree on December 30, 2004. The court placed primary care of the minor children with Lisa, ordered Darin to pay child support and divided the parties’ assets and debts. Darin was awarded his 401(K) plan in the approximate amount of $9,000 subject to the encumbrance thereon and his 1967 Corvette, which the court valued at $30,000. The court awarded Lisa her 1995 Trans Am vehicle valued at $5,000 and household furniture and appliances valued at $1,000. The court ordered Darin to pay Lisa a cash award in the amount of $25,000 “due to the disparity in the property division insofar as the bulk of the marital assets are awarded to Darin.” Darin was also required to pay Lisa attorney fees in the amount of $1,000.
Darin appeals. He contends the court failed to make an equitable division of the parties’ assets and debts. Darin argues the court erred in its valuation of the Corvette and the household furniture and appliances. He also argues the cash award was excessive because it resulted in Lisa being awarded eighty percent of the marital estate. Lastly, he asserts the award of attorney fees should be denied or reduced because no evidence was presented to the court regarding the amount of Lisa’s attorney fees.
II. Scope of Review
Our review of this equitable proceeding is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage of Wagner, 604 N.W.2d 605, 608
(Iowa 2000). We give weight to the district court’s findings of fact but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.41(6)(g).
III.Discussion
In allocating the parties’ assets and debts, the court strives to make a division that is fair and equitable under the circumstances. In re Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246
(Iowa Ct.App. 1991). “To make an equitable distribution of assets, the court must first determine what assets are available to be allocated between the spouses.” In re Marriage of Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d 640, 641-42 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). To do this, the court must identify and value the assets the parties held both jointly and separately. Id. at 642.
Darin purchased a 1967 Corvette in 1997 for approximately $28,000. He drove the Corvette for about a month before he began to disassemble it for restoration. Darin sold the car to his mother for $100 shortly after Lisa filed this dissolution action. He contends the $30,000 value the court assigned to the Corvette is too high. According to Darin, when he disassembled the Corvette, he discovered that the engine, transmission and rear end were not original to the car. He claims he paid too much for the car. Darin testified the Corvette is worth $17,500, but provided the court with no other evidence as to the value of the Corvette. Lisa presented current bid prices, ranging from $28,000 to $36,100, for three 1967 Corvettes being sold on eBay. We find the value placed on the Corvette by the court to be well within the range of credible evidence, and we will not disturb it on appeal. Id. at 643.
However, we find the value the court placed on the parties’ furniture and appliances should be modified. The court assigned a $1,000 value to these items and awarded them to Lisa. In the financial affidavit Lisa submitted to the court, she claimed the furniture and appliances at issue were worth $2,200. This was the only evidence presented to the court regarding the value of these items. We conclude the household contents should be valued at $2,200.
The next determination is whether the parties’ assets were equitably distributed. Id. at 642. Iowa courts do not require an equal division or percentage distribution; rather, the determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each particular case. Russell, 680 N.W.2d at 246. In determining what division would be equitable, courts are guided by the criteria set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (2003). Upon our de novo review of the record, we do not find any circumstances that would justify an unequal distribution of the marital assets.
In ordering Darin to pay Lisa $25,000, the court stated the cash award was “due to the disparity in the property division, insofar as the bulk of the marital assets are awarded to Darin.” It therefore appears the court was attempting to effect an equal division of the parties’ assets. However, the court’s cash award resulted in an unequal distribution of the marital assets. Darin’s net award resulting from the decree’s allocation of marital assets equals $32,200. Lisa’s net award resulting from the decree’s allocation of marital assets equals $3,269. To equalize Darin and Lisa’s property awards, we find the equalizing payment to Lisa should be reduced to the sum of $14,465.50.
Darin objects to the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $1,000 for Lisa’s attorney fees. Iowa trial courts have considerable discretion in awarding attorney fees in dissolution actions. In re Marriage of Giles, 338 N.W.2d 544, 546
(Iowa Ct.App. 1983). To overturn an award, the complaining party must show the trial court abused its discretion. Id. Awards of attorney fees must be for fair and reasonable amounts. In re Marriage of Applegate, 567 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Darin does not claim the attorney fees awarded by the trial court were not fair or reasonable. Rather, he argues the award should be denied or reduced because Lisa did not present evidence regarding the amount of her attorney fees. We find Darin failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in its award of attorney fees. We therefore affirm the attorney fees awarded by the court.
IV.Conclusion
We modify the district court’s decree by reducing the equalizing payment awarded by the court from $25,000 to $14,465.50. The remainder of the court’s decree is affirmed.
Costs are taxed one-half to each party.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.