Opinion
No. 5-298 / 04-1709
Filed May 25, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ringgold County, David L. Christensen, Judge.
Scott Drake appeals from the economic provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Lisa Drake. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
David L. Jungmann of David L. Jungmann, P.C., Greenfield, for appellant.
Carol A. Clark, Lamoni, for appellee.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., Zimmer, J., and Hendrickson, S.J.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
Scott Drake appeals from the economic provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Lisa Drake. He contends the court failed to make an equitable division of the parties' property and debt. We affirm as modified.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Scott and Lisa were married in April 1982. They have three children; Chad, age twenty-two, Brittany, age sixteen, and Nathan, age fifteen. Both parties have high school diplomas and are in good health.
Scott is a self-employed farmer. He supplements his income by driving a semi tractor. Lisa is employed by the City of Mount Ayr. Following the parties' separation, she also started working a part-time job for seventeen hours per week.
When the parties married, Scott owned twenty cows, a tractor worth approximately $5000 to $10,000, a pickup truck, and farm machinery worth approximately $3000 to $4000. Lisa had no significant assets. Neither party had any debt at the time of marriage.
Lisa filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in February 2004. A trial was held to determine issues of child custody and support, as well as division of the parties' assets and debts. In its September 2004 decree, the district court granted Scott primary care of Nathan and granted Lisa primary care of Brittany. Scott was ordered or pay Lisa $280 per month in child support, and Lisa was ordered to pay Scott $374 per month in child support.
The court also ordered division of the parties' debts and assets. Each party was awarded their personal property, vehicles, bank accounts, and retirement savings and plans. Scott was awarded all the farm machinery, equipment, supplies and crops, and the debts on the same. Lisa was awarded a portion of the farmland and Scott was awarded the remainder. Scott was ordered to refinance the parties' joint debts awarded to him so that Lisa would be no longer liable for the real estate awarded her. Scott was ordered to pay Lisa a cash property settlement of $152,000, with interest at the statutory rate.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
Appeal of economic provisions of a divorce decree is de novo. In re Marriage of Campbell, 623 N.W.2d 585, 586 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). This standard requires us to examine the entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues properly presented. Id. We recognize the value in listening to and observing the parties and witnesses. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g). Consequently, we give weight to the findings of the trial court, although they are not binding. Campbell, 623 N.W.2d at 586.
III. Property Division.
The partners in a marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Bonnette, 584 N.W.2d 713, 714 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean an equal division of property, nor does it mean a percentage division of the property. Id. In making this assessment, we consider the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (2003). We use the date of trial as the most appropriate date to value assets, while recognizing the need for flexibility in making equitable distributions based on the unique circumstances of each case. Campbell, 623 N.W.2d at 588.
Scott first contends the court erred in including for property division his calves and stored grain and hay, which he claims added approximately $50,000 in value to the divisible property. The value of these items are due, in part, to Lisa's contribution to the family. However, Scott was awarded the crops which had not yet been harvested. The court did not assign a value to the crops or consider them in the property distribution. We conclude it was equitable to consider the value of Scott's award of cattle and stored grain and hay in making the overall property distribution.
Scott contends the district court erred in valuing the farmland at $800 per acre. He argues the credible evidence shows the value to be much closer to $700 per acre. However, in a bank financial statement, Scott listed the value of the property at $800 per acre. "Although our review is de novo, we will defer to the trial court when valuations are accompanied with supporting credibility findings or corroborating evidence." In re Marriage of Vieth, 591 N.W.2d 639, 640 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). The valuation found by the trial court was well within the permissible range of evidence. See In re Marriage of Williams, 449 N.W.2d 878, 881 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990) (valuing a marital farm at an amount between the parties' calculations was in the permissible range of evidence). We will therefore not disturb it on appeal. See In re Marriage of Driskoll, 563 N.W.2d 640, 643 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Scott also contends the court erred in failing to credit him $20,000 for the cattle and machinery brought into the marriage. Property which a party brings into the marriage is a factor to consider in making an equitable division. Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(b).
A premarital asset is not otherwise set aside like gifted and inherited property. Instead, it is a factor to consider, together with all the other circumstances, in making an overall division. Its impact on the ultimate distribution will vary with the particular circumstance of each case. Furthermore, in considering accumulations to premarital assets, we do not limit our focus to the parties' direct contributions to the increase. Instead, we broadly consider the contributions of each party to the overall marriage, as well as all other factors.
In re Marriage of Miller, 552 N.W.2d 460, 465 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
We find the district court's division of property to be equitable when considering the factors enumerated in section 598.21(1). The parties were married twenty-two years. Lisa assisted Scott with farm work and worked outside the home to help pay the family's bills, including farm debt. Accordingly, there is no error in denying Scott a $20,000 credit for the property he brought into the marriage.
Finally, Scott contends the court erred in ordering him to pay a lump sum cash settlement of $152,000, with interest, instead of allowing him to pay the property settlement over time. We conclude the court's cash property settlement award is not equitable. Although Scott's assets outnumber Lisa's, these assets are essential to his livelihood and cannot be liquidated. Liquidation of these assets would result in substantial income tax liability for Scott. Unlike Lisa, Scott has a great amount of debt. Additionally, Lisa was awarded farmland valued at $63,200, which she may sell in order to begin her new life.
We conclude a cash property settlement of $120,000, payable in six annual installments of $20,000 is equitable under the facts of this case. The payments shall be made on or before November 1 of each year, beginning November 1, 2005. No interest shall be charged on these payments if they are timely made. In the event a payment is not timely made, interest will be charged on the whole balance at the then current statutory rate. Furthermore, Lisa shall have judgment for this amount which will be a lien against the Scott's property.
We affirm the district court's decree as modified. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Scott.