Opinion
No. 2-466 / 01-1830
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.
The father appeals from the custodial and property division provisions of the dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Daniel Bray and Chad Kepros of Bray Klockau, P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellant.
Sharon Mellon of Mellon Spies, Iowa City, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Troy Ross appeals from the custodial and economic provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He claims the court erred in granting the mother, Nancy Ross, primary physical care of the parties' daughter. He also argues the district court incorrectly valued the marital estate as of the date of trial. Nancy cross-appeals claiming the Christmas visitation provisions of the decree are inequitable. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
Troy and Nancy met in 1983 when both were pursuing advanced degrees at Louisiana State University. They were married in 1988 in Louisiana. Soon after their marriage, Nancy and Troy moved to Madison, Wisconsin. They lived in Madison for six years and then moved to Iowa. Their daughter, Natalie, was born on May 27, 1996.
The parties separated in April of 1999 after several years of marital discord. Nancy and Natalie moved from the family residence near Conesville in rural Louisa County, Iowa to a rented duplex in Coralville. Nancy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in December of 1999.
Troy has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and is employed as the executive administrator of the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust in Muscatine. He earns an annual salary of $170,000. Nancy has a Ph.D. in microbiology and is employed as a research scientist in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Iowa. She has an annual salary of $48,000.
On March 2, 2000, the parties agreed to a partial distribution of assets so Nancy could purchase a home. Certain assets were liquidated to provide cash for Nancy's down payment. Nancy and Natalie subsequently moved into a home in a quiet, child-friendly neighborhood.
In June 2000, Nancy attended her high school reunion in her hometown of Plaquemine, Louisiana. She became reacquainted with former classmate Tom Delahaye, an attorney. At the time, Delahaye was also separated from his spouse. A romantic relationship soon developed and Nancy and Delahaye became engaged in February of 2001. Nancy plans to move to Louisiana and marry her former classmate.
Trial commenced on September 17, 2001 and lasted five days. Following trial, the district court entered its decree and awarded the parties' joint legal custody of Natalie with Nancy having primary physical care. The court also divided the assets of the parties valued at the time of trial. Nancy filed a motion to amend or enlarge pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b). She sought to have the Christmas visitation schedule modified. On that same date, Troy filed his own motion pursuant to 179(b) requesting overnight visitation every other Wednesday and cessation of alimony upon Nancy's cohabitation with Tom Delahaye. The court granted Troy's 179(b) motion on November 14, 2001. Troy filed his notice of appeal concerning the custody and property distribution provisions on November 13, 2001. The court did not rule on Nancy's motion before this appeal was taken.
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b) has since been redesignated as 1.904(2).
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW.
Dissolutions of marriage actions are tried in equity. In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d 48, 50-51 (Iowa 1999). Our standard of review is therefore de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. In such cases, "[w]e examine the entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues properly presented." In re Marriage of Beecher, 582 N.W.2d 510, 512-13 (Iowa 1998). In doing so, we give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Id. at 513.
III. DISCUSSION.
On appeal, Troy challenges both the custody provisions and the property distribution. He claims he should be awarded primary physical care of Natalie and child support for her welfare. Second, Troy contends the date of valuation of the marital estate should have been March 2, 2000 rather than the date of trial. Nancy cross-appeals seeking to modify the Christmas visitation schedule delineated by the district court.
A. NATALIE'S CUSTODY.
The best interest of the child dominates our consideration in child custody cases. In re Marriage of Brainerd, 523 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Numerous factors, enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2001), exist to supplement the best interest standard. See also In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 355-56 (Iowa 1983); In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). The critical issue in determining the best interests of the child is which parent will do better in raising the child into a healthy, content, and well-adjusted young adult. See In re Marriage of Rodgers, 470 N.W.2d 43, 44 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991).
Troy argues the record demonstrates that he is the parent best able to minister to Natalie's long-term best interests. In support of this contention he cites his consistency, stability, and exemplary character. He believes that placing Natalie's primary physical care with him will maximize her physical and emotional contact with both parents. In addition, Troy contends staying in Iowa will permit Natalie to maintain the strong bond she has with her paternal grandmother. According to Troy, physical care with her father will allow Natalie to maintain her friends, the places she is familiar with, and the daily care which has made her flourish.
Troy also maintains that placement with Nancy will not serve Natalie's best interests. He argues that Nancy has demonstrated insensitivity to Natalie's moral and emotional well-being because of her relationship with Tom Delahaye. The negative impact of Natalie's move to Louisiana, Troy asserts, is another factor to preclude Nancy from having Natalie's primary physical care. See In re Marriage of Crotty, 584 N.W.2d 714, 717-18 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).
We begin by indicating we share the trial court's view that both of the parties are more than adequate caretakers for Natalie. By all reports, Natalie is a personable, articulate, and intelligent young girl with enormous potential. She shares close bonds with both parents as well as her paternal grandmother. The record demonstrates Nancy and Troy are capable and loving parents. Natalie would likely thrive in either of their homes. Faced with a very difficult decision, the trial court gave the edge to Nancy on the issue of primary physical care and granted Troy liberal visitation.
The trial court gave several reasons for its conclusion regarding primary care. The court found Nancy had been Natalie's primary caretaker both before and during the parties' two-year separation. The court also found Troy himself ceded primary care responsibilities to Nancy during the time the parties were separated until he learned Nancy intended to remarry and relocate. The district court concluded Natalie's future friends and relatives in Louisiana are positive, accepting, and stable individuals who will broaden Natalie's universe of excellent role models. The court further found the detrimental impact to Natalie of being separated from her mother would be greater than she would suffer from separation from her father.
In the final analysis, a custodial determination must reflect and accomplish whatever is in the best interest of the affected child. See Weidner, 338 N.W.2d at 358. In making that assessment we give considerable weight to the sound judgment of the trial court. This is because the trial judge has had the benefit of hearing and observing the parties firsthand. In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984). The record reveals an experienced trial judge gave careful considerations to the parties competing claims and evidence regarding the issue of primary physical care. Upon careful review of the record, we find no reason to disagree with the district court's decision to grant joint custody with primary care vested in Nancy and liberal visitation as provided in the court's decree. The generous visitation schedule should also aid in maximizing Troy's relationship with Natalie. We affirm on this issue.
B. PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION.
Generally, the appropriate time for the court to value assets is the date of trial. In re Marriage of Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) (citations omitted). Troy argues that there are unique circumstances in this case to depart from that general rule.
The partners to a marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). Iowa courts do not require an equal division or percentage distribution. Id. The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. In re Marriage of Campbell, 623 N.W.2d 585, 586 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). The distribution of the property should be made in consideration of the criteria codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(1). See In re Marriage of Estlund, 344 N.W.2d 276, 280 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983).
While the trial court typically values assets on the date of trial, there may be occasions where unique circumstances dictate another date to obtain equitable results. See Campbell, 623 N.W.2d at 586; Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d at 642. For example, when a husband and wife separate several years prior to dissolution, the trial date may not be the proper date to value the marital assets. See Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d at 642.
Troy argues the proper date of valuation should be March 2, 2000. On that date, Troy maintains, the parties comprehensively divided their assets to enable Nancy to buy a house. Troy also contends that Nancy did not contribute to the post-separation accumulation of equity in his house and retirement funds, and therefore, she should not be entitled to the increased monies. We conclude otherwise.
We agree with the trial court that the parties did not agree to March 2, 2000 as the date of valuation. The parties certainly did not comprehensively divide their assets. The pretrial statement, signed by both parties, lists the valuation and distribution of real estate, pension, and other property as issues that remained in dispute. Further, the order setting trial lists property, pension, and debts as issues that remained for trial. The record reveals that on March 2, 2000 the parties were merely reorganizing equity in their assets to provide Nancy cash for a down payment on a new house. While there may have been a post-separation accumulation of equity, we believe the trial court correctly valued the parties' assets as of the date of trial. We affirm the trial court's distribution of assets and debts as equitable under the circumstances of this case.
C. CHRISTMAS VISITATION.
Nancy contends the Christmas visitation schedule under the decree is inequitable in the event she moves to Louisiana. The decree provides that, on odd-numbered years, Troy has visitation with Natalie for the first half of her Christmas vacation from school, including Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. On even-numbered years, the opposite is true — Nancy has Natalie for the first half. The decree further provides that should Nancy move to Louisiana, Troy is to have visitation with Natalie on even-numbered years for virtually the entire Christmas holiday. Troy would also have visitation for the first half, including Christmas Day and Christmas Eve, of every odd-numbered year.
In establishing visitation rights, our governing consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Generally, liberal visitation rights are in the child's best interests. Id. Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a) provides in pertinent part:
The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents. . . .
When dealing with visitation issues, prior cases have little precedential value and we must base our decision primarily on the particular circumstances of the parties before us. In re Petition of Holub, 584 N.W.2d 731, 732 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).
We agree with Troy that the Christmas visitation provisions are proper and should not be changed on appeal. Considering Natalie will be living in Louisiana, we find the visitation provisions of the decree are equitable and in her best interests. We decline to modify this portion of the court's decree.
IV. CONCLUSION.
We affirm the decision of the district court on the issues raised in this appeal. We decline to grant Nancy's request for attorney's fees.