In re Marriage of Walker
| Decision Date | 10 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-0109 |
| Parties | IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRIDGET JO WALKER AND TERRY CHARLES WALKER Upon the Petition of BRIDGET JO WALKER, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning TERRY CHARLES WALKER, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Mary E Chicchelly, Judge.
Terry Walker appeals the economic provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Bridget Walker. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud &Weese, P.C. West Des Moines, for appellant.
John J. Hines of Dutton, Daniels, Hines, Kalkhoff, Cook &Swanson, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
Chicchelly, J., takes no part.
"I work every day, and so can she," said Terry Walker at the trial to dissolve his nearly twenty-five-year marriage to Bridget Walker, who was seeking spousal support from him. But Bridget had spent most of that marriage helping Terry run his lawn care business-work she could no longer do after their separation and her move to Florida, where she was employed full time at a resort. In its dissolution decree, the district court granted Bridget's request for spousal support and, after finding Terry "rather lacking in credibility," mostly adopted her proposed property division. Terry appeals.
Terry and Bridget Walker married in 1997. They had two children together, though only one was still a minor at the time of trial.[1] About two years before their marriage, Terry started a lawn care business called Turf-Pro. Bridget began working for the business about a year later. The parties grew the business together during the marriage, with both working for it on a full-time basis. Bridget handled mowing, data entry, and bookkeeping. While Terry's duties were not spelled out at trial, he testified: "I am the business."
The parties separated in July 2019. Bridget and the minor child moved to Florida and began living in a one-bedroom condo the parties bought in 2018 for $172,000.00. To pay for the condo, they took out a $30,000.00 loan, secured by a mortgage on their marital home in Iowa. The rest came from some marital funds Bridget said she saved over the years, along with an inheritance of $57,521.46 from her father's estate and roughly $20,000.00 in cash that Bridget testified she found in her parents' home after the estate closed. The loan was paid off before Bridget and the child moved into the condo in 2019.
When the parties separated, Bridget took a 2018 Chevrolet Equinox with her to Florida. That vehicle was destroyed by Hurricane Sally, leaving Bridget without a vehicle for some time. Bridget and the parties' minor child were also without health insurance for several months after Terry canceled their policy in April or May 2020. Bridget petitioned for divorce in July, following which she applied for temporary spousal support and the insurance proceeds that Terry had received for the totaled Equinox. The court granted both requests. Despite this order, Terry withheld $2000.00 from the proceeds he was ordered to pay to Bridget.
For tax year 2020, Terry issued Bridget a 1099-NEC form, stating she had received $22,002.61 in nonemployee compensation. Terry at first testified this was for Bridget's work in preparing "the taxes and mowing statements in 2020," even though Bridget testified that she did not work for Turf-Pro at all that year. On crossexamination, Terry agreed that he just "total[]ed up all payments that were made on what [he] considered [Bridget's] behalf," for things like the health insurance premium for her and the child, to arrive at that amount. The parties' tax returns show that in previous years, Bridget never received a 1099 approaching that amount. In another first, Terry claimed that in 2020, he paid his father $20,000.00 in rent for a building where Turf-Pro's equipment and chemicals were stored. But Bridget testified they had been using that building for more than twenty years and never paid Terry's father any rent.
By the time the case went to trial in December 2021, Bridget was fifty-two years old and, according to Terry, in good health. She graduated high school but did not pursue any post-secondary education or training. Her work experience was limited to Turf-Pro until the parties separated, when she began working full time at a resort in Orange Beach, Alabama. She earns $12.74 per hour, plus tips that in 2020 totaled $2374.00. Bridget testified her income was pretty standard for the tourist industry where she lives and works. Terry was fifty-one years old and also in good health at the time of trial. He continues to run the Turf-Pro business, but the slim record does not reveal much else about him. The district court found Bridget's gross annual income was $28,000.00, while Terry's was $86,000.00, which the court said translated into a net monthly income of $2000.00 for Bridget and $4682.34 for Terry. Neither party disputes those figures.
Bridget explained the parties lived comfortably during the marriage. They went on vacations, didn't "penny pinch," and always drove nice vehicles. Bridget testified that she could not meet her ongoing monthly expenses of $3332.00 on her income and the stipulated amount of child support ($700.00 per month). In contrast, Terry went on several vacations after the parties separated-Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Chicago-though he said they were "business related trips" for "turf specialists" and "[l]awn care people." Bridget requested $600.00 per month in spousal support until she reached retirement age and could claim Social Security. But Terry believed Bridget was underemployed, testifying: As a result, Terry testified he shouldn't have to pay her spousal support.
Although Terry touted Bridget's bookkeeping skills, he questioned her valuation of Turf-Pro. Bridget estimated the business was worth $150,000.00 based on its established nature, loyal customer list, equipment, and income. But according to Terry, the business was worth nothing without him-though he acknowledged its equipment was "worth something." Yet neither party specified what equipment was owned by the business. Both listed a 2017 Ford F-350, two 2013 Ford F-250s, and a 2013 Jeep on their proposed property distributions. Bridget, however, listed those vehicles separately from the business while, as noted, Terry did not value the business at all. He also failed to include his hunting and fishing equipment, a Polaris side-by-side, or a Camaro that Bridget said he owned, and he removed a camper and four-wheeler that had been on an earlier affidavit of financial status. For her part, Bridget did not value jewelry that she said Terry gave her during the marriage.
The district court did what it could with these bare-bones facts. In its spousal-support analysis, the court found that Bridget needed spousal support because she had a budget deficit of roughly $1300.00 before child support was factored in. As for Terry, the court found that while he claimed $3170.00 in monthly expenses from his net monthly income of $4682.34, most expenses were covered by the business. Adding in Terry's ability to take multiple vacations since the parties' separation, a luxury Bridget had not enjoyed, the court found he had an ability to pay spousal support. Overall, the court explained:
Because of the lengthy term of this marriage, the fact that Bridget was previously employed for most of the marriage in the family business and has not had any post-secondary schooling, and because Bridget now resides in a geographical area where the pay for her skill level is not high, the Court finds that Bridget's request for permanent alimony is reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the imposition of an award of alimony will serve to provide Bridget with a standard of living that is more commensurate with the standard of living she enjoyed during the course of the parties' marriage.
The court accordingly awarded Bridget monthly spousal support of $600.00 until the first of either party's death, Bridget's remarriage, or Bridget reaching the age of sixty-five.
As for property division, the parties agreed before trial they had "each received the property they want, including real estate and investments as well as most personal property." But they disagreed about the value of some of that property, including Turf-Pro, the condo in Florida, and some miscellaneous items like the side-by-side, hunting and fishing equipment, the Camaro, and Bridget's jewelry. After hearing from both parties, the court questioned Terry's candor and found "Bridget's overall approach and testimony to be more believable." Those findings led the court to adopt most of Bridget's valuations, which resulted in the court requiring Terry to make an equalization payment of $95,784.14 to Bridget.
Terry appeals, challenging both the property-distribution and spousal-support provisions of the dissolution decree.
We review dissolution proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; see In re Marriage of Pazhoor, 971 N.W.2d 530, 537 (Iowa 2022). While we give weight to the factual findings of the district court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 2007). The district court's decree will be disturbed only upon a failure to do equity. In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).
Marital property is to be divided equitably, considering the factors in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial