In Re The Marriage Of Rujuta Lagu Vidal And Peter Lewis Vidal
| Decision Date | 25 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 0-398 / 09-1608,0-398 / 09-1608 |
| Parties | IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RUJUTA LAGU VIDAL AND PETER LEWIS VIDAL Upon the Petition of RUJUTA LAGU VIDAL, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning PETER LEWIS VIDAL, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Brian D. Miller of Miller & Miller, P.C., Hampton, for appellant.
Kristy B. Arzberger of Arzberger Law Office, Mason City, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.
Respondent appeals several provisions of the decree dissolving his
marriage to petitioner. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
Peter Lewis Vidal appeals from a September 2009 decree dissolving his 1994 marriage to Rujuta Lagu Vidal. He contends the district court erred in (1) allowing him only three hours to present his case in chief and not allowing him to call witnesses who would have testified on issues of child custody and visitation, (2) giving a counselor the authority to expand or reduce his parenting time with the parties' minor child, (3) reversing its order allowing him discovery of Rujuta's foreign bank account, (4) allowing Rujuta to call an undisclosed expert witness, (5) not giving him sufficient credit for his premarital assets and gifted property, (6) computing child support and allocating uncovered medical expenses, and (7) awarding alimony and dividing the parties' property. We affirm as modified and remand.
We review the constitutional challenge to the court's decree de novo. In re Marriage of Seyler, 559 N.W.2d 7, 9 (Iowa 1997); Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 510 N.W.2d 854, 865 (Iowa 1994). A trial court has considerable discretion in directing the course of the trial. Nichols v. Kirchner, 241 Iowa 99, 106, 40 N.W.2d 13, 17 (1949); Fournier v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, 368 N.W.2d 849, 852 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985). A review of the merits of the dissolution decree also is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009).
The parties married in 1994. At the time Peter was forty-three and Rujuta was twenty. The parties' only child, a daughter, was born in 1999. Peter is adentist and has a practice in Garner, Iowa, that was well established at the time of marriage. Rujuta received education during the marriage and has held various jobs. The dissolution petition was filed on March 15, 2007. The parties owned real estate and personal property including motor vehicles. They have life insurance and retirement accounts. They also have debt.
In a decree filed September 9, 2009, the district court provided that the parties have joint custody of their daughter and Rujuta have physical care. The court also set forth what it termed a parenting schedule that included visitation for Peter and ordered the parties to abstain from the use of alcohol and controlled substances while the child was in their care. Peter was ordered to pay child support of $1253 a month. The court awarded Rujuta alimony of $2000 a month for twenty-four months and $1000 a month for thirty-six months. The court divided the property and debt and ordered Peter to pay $380,000 as an equalization payment and $10,000 of Rujuta's attorney fees and the court costs.
Peter contends the district court committed constitutional error in denying him due process in providing only three hours for him to present his case in chief on issues of child custody and visitation and in not allowing him to call certain witnesses to address these issues.
On June 4, 2008, the district court filed a pretrial order captioned: "Order Regarding Presentation of Trial" noting trial on the petition for dissolution was set for June 17, 2008, at 9 a.m. The order provided the court would first hear the direct and cross-examination of Rujuta and then the direct and cross-examinationof Peter. It further provided the court would then hear the parties' witnesses in the more traditional order of trial unless the parties by agreement took a witness out of turn. Several motions for continuances of the trial date were filed and granted. Trial was held on January 21, 22, and 23, 2009, on all issues except custody and visitation.
On April 22, 2009, the district court entered a second pretrial order that is the center of this dispute. The order provided, among other things, for the
presentation of evidence on custody and visitation. It provided in relevant part:
Peter's attorney responded to the order by letter with a carbon copy to Rujuta's attorney asking if he could use the two hours allocated for rebuttal witnesses to call witnesses he would classify as case-in-chief witnesses.
The judge denied the request stating:
I have ordered a very specific schedule for the parties' presentation of evidence for the purpose of keeping a tight rein on the trial schedule, which I believe is demonstrably necessary in this case. Case-in-chief evidence is by definition presented prior to the other party's opportunity to rebut, and I decline to amend the previously ordered schedule of presentation.
Peter then filed an objection to the scheduling order and a renewed request for additional time to present his case-in-chief. He contended that he was planning to call ten witnesses during his three-hour case-in-chief evidence. He listed four other witnesses who he wanted to call but believed he could not call because of the judge-imposed time restraints. All of the witnesses were specifically named and the motion supplied a brief summary of the testimony he believed each witness would give.
Of the fourteen named witnesses Peter contends here he was not allowed to call five. These witnesses and the summary of their testimony Peter presented to the court are:
Michelle Lehman
-Ms. Lehman is employed by the Iowa Department of Human Services. Ms. Lehman would have testified regarding a child abuse complaint made by Rujuta against Peter Vidal relating to [the parties' child], and that said child abuse complaint was determined to be unfounded, and without merit;
John Heilskov-Mr. Heilskov would have testified regarding his first hand knowledge and experiences with both Peter Vidal and Rujuta Vidal and their respective parenting strengths and weaknesses. He would have testified regarding claims of spousal abuse alleged by Rujuta, as well as claims of child abuse alleged by Rujuta during the pendency of this action. He would have testified regarding who he believed would be better able to parent [the child] on a day to day basis;
Doug Suntken-Mr. Suntken would have testified regarding his first hand knowledge and experiences with both Peter Vidal and Rujuta Vidal and their respective parenting strengths and weaknesses. Mr. Suntken would have testified that Rujuta's claims of spousal abuse, and her claims that Peter was abusive to [the parties' child] were false, and motivated by Rujuta's desire to make sure there was no relationship between father and daughter;
Barb Heilskov-Mrs. Heilskov would have testified regarding her first hand knowledge and experiences with both Peter Vidal and Rujuta Vidal and their respective parenting strengths and weaknesses. She would have testified regarding claims of spousal abuse alleged by Rujuta, as well as claims of child abuse alleged by Rujuta during the pendency of this action. She would have testified regarding who she believed would be better able to parent [the parties' child] on a day to day basis;
Connie Suntken-Mrs. Suntken would have testified regarding her first hand knowledge and experiences with both Peter Vidal and Rujuta Vidal and their respective parenting strengths and weaknesses. She would have testified that the allegations of spousal abuse made by Rujuta were false, and that Rujuta's allegations of child abuse by Peter during the pendency of this action were also not true, and motivated by Rujuta's desire to destroy any relationship between father and daughter. She would have testified regarding who she believed was better able to parent [the parties' child] on a day to day basis;
Jim Amelsberg-Mr. Amelsberg would have testified regarding counseling services he has provided for both Peter Vidal and Rujuta Vidal. Mr. Amelsberg would have testified regarding specific mental health problems experienced by Rujuta during the parties' marriage.
Peter also contends that he was denied the opportunity to redirect witness Jennifer Hitchcock. After Hitchcock's cross-examination the following transpired:
To continue reading
Request your trial