No. 3-162 / 02-1023Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed April 4, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert D. Wilson, Judge.
Petitioner appeals from dissolution decree ordering spousal support.AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Charles Coppola of Coppola, Sandre, McConville Carroll, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Scott Bandstra, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
VOGEL, P.J.
The dissolution decree requires Charles Schnoor to pay former wife, Marilyn Schnoor, monthly spousal support of $1,800.00. Charles appeals.
Background Facts. Charles and Marilyn Schnoor were married in February 1989. At the time of the marriage, Charles was forty-nine years of age and Marilyn was forty-six. The couple has no children; though Marilyn is the guardian for her two grandchildren, ages ten and eight. Charles has been employed at R.G. Elder Corporation for more than thirty years and earns in excess of $54,000 annually. Marilyn has been unable to work during the marriage due to a number of serious illnesses including: chronic active hepatitis B with chronic pain, a double mastectomy, Lupis, congenital heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver, and peptic ulcer disease. Marilyn’s sole source of income is $361 she receives each month as guardian for her grandchildren.
The dissolution decree ordered Charles to pay $1,800 per month to Marilyn as alimony until she dies or remarries. If Charles does not survive Marilyn, the decree requires his estate to purchase an annuity to continue the monthly alimony. Charles appeals.
Scope of Review. We conduct a de novo review of dissolution proceedings. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. We defer to the district court’s findings, but are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)(g).
Discussion. An award of spousal support is a balancing of the equities. In re Marriage of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). It is used as a means of compensating the party who leaves the marriage at a financial disadvantage, particularly where there is a large disparity in earnings. Id. It is a discretionary award, dependent upon each party’s earning capacity and present standards of living, as well as the ability to pay and the relative need for support. In re Marriage of Bell, 576 N.W.2d 618, 622 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998) abrogated on other grounds by In re Marriage of Wendell, 581 N.W.2d 197, 200 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Courts are guided by Iowa Code section 598.21(3), which mandates consideration of a number of factors, such as the length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the earning capacity of the spouse seeking support, and particulars surrounding that spouse’s ability to become self-sufficient.
The duration and amount of alimony awarded will differ according to the purpose it is designed to serve. In re Marriage of O’Rourke, 547 N.W.2d 864, 866 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (citing In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 63-64 (Iowa 1989)). Traditional alimony is usually payable for the life of the dependent spouse or until the dependent spouse is self-supporting. In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) (citing Francis, 442 N.W.2d at 62). “The purpose of a traditional or permanent alimony award is to provide the receiving spouse with support comparable to what he or she would receive if the marriage continued.” Id. at 922. “Both parties . . . have an obligation `to earn up to their capacities in order to pay their own present bills and not lean unduly on the other party for permanent support.'” In re Marriage of Craig, 462 N.W.2d 692, 694 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990) (quoting In re Marriage of Wegner, 434 N.W.2d 397, 399 (Iowa 1988)).
Charles claims the amount of alimony is excessive. Marilyn’s current sole source of income is $361 per month as guardian of her grandchildren. Marilyn filed an affidavit of financial status listing monthly expenses of $3,303.17. Charles appears to be in good health and continues to work for R.G. Elder Corporation. Because of her inability to work and medical expenses, Marilyn would be destitute without spousal support. Therefore, we agree with the district court’s award of $1,800 per month alimony.
The dissolution decree also required Charles’s estate to secure continuation of the monthly alimony payments by purchasing an annuity, should he not survive Marilyn. Generally, spousal support terminates on the death of the payor. In re Marriage of Weinberger, 507 N.W.2d 733, 736
(Iowa Ct.App. 1993). We find no reason under these facts to depart from this general rule and therefore strike the provision requiring Charles’s estate to purchase an annuity for the continuation of the spousal support. The spousal support shall terminate upon Marilyn’s remarriage or death of either party, whichever first occurs.
Charles further claims his alimony obligation should cease when he retires as he claims his only sources of income then will be social security and his retirement accounts. Charles has a pension fund valued at the time of trial at $57,452.37 and a profit sharing plan valued at $17,992.42. The court divided each equally between the parties under a QDRO so each will receive the same retirement benefits from these accounts. Because the record does not address the anticipated income and expenses of the parties, we will not modify to strike the continuation of the alimony after Charles retires, but he may seek modification of the spousal support if the circumstances change substantially. See In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347, 353 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.