Beeh's Marriage, In re, 55888

• Decision Date: 16 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 55888,55888
• Citation: 214 N.W.2d 170
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Elizabeth BEEH and Edward Beeh. Upon the Petition of Elizabeth BEEH, Appellant, and Concerning Edward BEEH, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 170

214 N.W.2d 170

In re the MARRIAGE OF Elizabeth BEEH and Edward Beeh Upon the Petition of Elizabeth BEEH, Appellant and Concerning Edward BEEH, Appellee.

No. 55888.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 16, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1974.

Kersten, Opheim, Carlson & Estes, Fort Dodge, for appellant.

R. Thomas Price, Fort Dodge, for appellee.

Considered en banc.

REYNOLDSON, Justice.

The trial court in this cause denied alimony to a wife who devoted sixteen and one-half years to the role of full-time homemaker and mother to three children. It grounded its decision largely on the progress of 'women's liberation,' sex equality, and the general social and economic emancipation of women. The wife, petitioner Elizabeth Beeh, appeals from this and other provisions of the dissolution decree. We modify in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

Petitioner and respondent were married April 2, 1956. They have three children: Debra, born February 12, 1957; Dianne, born October 15, 1960; and Edward, born November 19, 1964. At time of trial in September 1972 petitioner was 40, the respondent 44.

When this couple married, petitioner held a bachelor of science degree in nursing and was teaching nursing at the University of Iowa. She abandoned this profession and the couple established a home in Fort Dodge. The only employment outside the home petitioner has since undertaken was lecturing on nursing procedures four hours a day at a Fort Dodge hospital when first married, and later instructing in nursing at the junior college two mornings a week for two semesters in 1966 or 1967, substituting for two weeks in the program in 1970.

When this couple first met, the respondent, son of a successful Fort Dodge medical doctor, was employed (and has since been continuously employed) by Union Trust & Savings Bank, Fort Dodge, in which the Beeh family owns a major interest. He has been and is on the board of directors of Harcourt Savings Bank. He attended the University of Iowa from 1946 to 1948 and Babsen School of Business in Boston, Massachusetts from 1958 to 1960. Respondent has also taken banking courses at Iowa State University and attended three summer courses at a banking school at Madison, Wisconsin. He has a speech defect. A few years prior to this dissolution respondent underwent a spinal laminectomy involving the removal of a disc at the fourth lumbar level. He has had subsequent pain in the left leg for which he takes exercise therapy. Although this condition has interfered with the performance of his duties at the bank, respondent testified it was not likely it would endanger his employment.

At time of trial this couple owned a Fort Dodge home valued at $45,000. Respondent's financial statement filed in the dissolution proceeding itemizes stock valued at $47,471.25 and a one-half interest in Beeh Investments, a partnership with his brother. The partnership assets included three farms and a commercial lot in Fort Dodge. The statement valued the respondent's one-half interest at $172,500.

Respondent's father is deceased. His will created two trusts. The Anne Beeh Trust is a marital deduction trust with assets valued of $325,000. Anne Beeh (testator's spouse, respondent's mother) is the lifetime beneficiary of the income (and permissible principal payments) and may designate in her will who shall ulimately receive the corpus. If she makes no designation, it will pass equally to respondent and his brother under the terms of the 'Edward F. Beeh Trust.' The latter trust is for the lifetime of Anne Beeh. Respondent has the right to 'sprinkle' the income among Anne Beeh, his brother, himself, his children and the children of his brother. He has never exercised this right. At the death of Anne Beeh, the 'Edward F. Beeh Trust' corpus will pass to respondent and his brother equally, in three installments extending over ten years. At present the sole asset of the last-named trust is 4215 shares of Union Trust & Savings Bank stock worth $45 per share, a total of $189.675.

Respondent and his brother are heirs and potential beneficiaries under any will left by their mother. The record does not reflect her separate assets except her stock valued at $129,700 in Beeh Farms Incorporated, in which she is principal stockholder and respondent and his brother are minority stockholders.

Respondent owns life insurance policies on his life in the contract total of $66,000. The beneficiary is his testamentary trust created for the benefit of the children of these parties. The present cash value of this insurance was not established. At least two $10,000 policies are paid up. There are loans totaling $7343.46 outstanding against these policies. Respondent has additional insurance and pension trust benefits relating to his employment.

Insurance on petitioner's life is a $25,000 New York Life policy carrying a premium of $547 per year and a $2000 Iowa Life policy which she owned when married.

Under the Uniform Gift to Minors Act respondent is custodian of the children's stock worth $13,296.61. The children's dividends have been placed in savings accounts. These accounts now total from $1400 to $1200 each.

With the exception of several of the insurance policies, a portion of respondent's shares of bank stock, the family car (a 1968 Pontiac), and perhaps some personal items, household equipment and furnishings, the property owned by these parties (all standing in respondent's name except an interest in the house) was obtained by gifts from respondent's father and mother.

Respondent's income is about $20,000 per year, $8600 from his employment and the balance from investments and fees for managing family property. All of this has been spent for family living and in addition, so respondent claims, about $1500 per year obtained from his mother.

In his answer filed in district court respondent conceded it was in the children's best interest that they be in the permanent care of petitioner.

Trial court decreed respondent should pay child support in the sum of $225 per month for each child over 14 years of age, to continue until such child attains the age of 19 years, marries or dies, whichever occurs first, and $175 per month for each child under the age of 14 years.

Petitioner was awarded no alimony. She was awarded her personal belongings the household goods and furniture, the 1968 auto, the family home 'in lieu of alimony' and the $2000 Iowa Life Insurance policy.

Respondent was awarded all the other property and was to assume all debts and obligations. He was ordered to pay the costs and to pay petitioner $1500 of her attorney's $4000 claim for fees. Other provisions of the decree are not in issue. Trial court's conclusions of law upon which the decree is based include the following:

'Recent decisions have been materially changing the philosophy behind the laws pertaining to alimony. No doubt such results from women's liberation activity, Constitutional Amendments and legislation regarding sex equality. * * *

'It would appear unjust to require alimony payments for a spouse that is clearly able to provide for herself and where any children do not prevent her from being fully emancipated.

'There has been a recent emancipation of women socially and economically, particularly in the area of employment opportunities. Women are no longer restricted to certain types of jobs, and are entitled under the law to equal pay for equal work.'

Upon this appeal petitioner claims trial court improperly disposed of issues relating to alimony, property division, child support, and attorney fees. She asks for an award to pay her attorney fees for this appeal.

I. Rules of appellate procedure.

Briefs filed for both parties were excellant. However, in both briefs reference to the record were keyed to the transcript and not to the appendix as required by rule 344(g), Rules of Civil Procedure. The work of this court cannot be accelerated if nine justices must share one transcript. See Wilson-Sinclair Company v. Griggs, 211 N.W.2d 133 (Iowa 1973).

II. Scope of review.

Our review is, of course, de novo. Rule 334, R.C.P. The court gives weight to the fact findings of the trial court, but is not bound by them. Rule 344(f) (7), R.C.P.

A just determination of the issues presented here turns on the facts in the appendix. No two cases are factually alike. Precedents are of little value. In re Marriage of Romig, 207 N.W.2d 780 (Iowa 1973); In re Marriage of Cook, 205 N.W.2d 682 (Iowa 1973).

III. Child support.

Petitioner asserts when trial court fixed child support it should not have discriminated between children under age 14 and those 14 and over. She cites as authority one case, Weiland v. Weiland, 255 Iowa 477, 122 N.W.2d 837 (1963). There is nothing in that case which so ties the hand of the trial court in making 'such order in relation to the children, property, parties, and the maintenance of the parties as shall be justified.' Section 598.21, The Code. Obviously the court took into consideration, as it could on the facts in this appendix, that as each child attained 14 and started to parochial high school he or she would incur additional tuition charges. It could well have concluded unless economic conditions changed these children, upon reaching high school, would simply require more money for allowances, clothes and activities. We find trial court's decree in this respect entirely justified. See In re Marriage of Romig, supra.

IV. Alimony.

Both below and here, petitioner asks for a substantial award of permanent alimony.

Our above factual recital provides much of the information necessary for application of our criteria compiled in Schantz v. Schantz, 163 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 1969). After majority's decision in In re Marriage of Williams, 199 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa 1972) we no longer consider the fault criterion. The Schantz guides are applicable not only to property division on dissolution, but to the issue of alimony. See Geisinger v....