Mann v. Mann (In re Mann)

Citation943 N.W.2d 15
Decision Date01 May 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-1910,18-1910
Parties IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Andrea Kay MANN and Steven Robert Mann Upon the Petition of Andrea Kay Mann, Appellee, v. And Concerning Steven Robert Mann, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Matthew G. Sease of Sease & Wadding, Des Moines, for appellant.

Joseph L. Fitzgibbons of Fitzgibbons Law Firm, L.L.C., Estherville, for appellee.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, we consider whether a spouse with a recent income history less than that of his spouse is entitled to an award of alimony under the facts and circumstances developed at trial. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the spouse is not entitled to alimony.

I. Procedural and Factual Background.

Steven and Andrea Mann were married in 2002. At the time of trial, Steven was forty-nine years old. Andrea was forty-one years old. The couple has two young children who were seven and three at the time of trial. Andrea has a bachelor's degree in business management from Augsburg University obtained prior to the marriage.

Steven began a lawn mowing business when he was twelve years old and engaged in lawn mowing his entire life. During the winter months, he has provided a snow removal service. During the marriage, Steven handled the day-to-day operations of his lawn mowing and snow removal business, while Andrea billed the clients.

From the beginning of the marriage, Steven's lawn mowing and snow removal generated income for the family. At the time of trial, however, Steven admitted that in two of the past three years, he has reported a loss in income on the parties’ joint tax return. At time of trial, Steven testified he was struggling with sending bills to clients, and Steven admitted that there was a large accounts receivable for his business.

Andrea began working at Polaris Industries in Spirit Lake in 2004 as a payroll clerk. Andrea received regular promotions and worked her way up to the position of materials manager for the entire factory in 2017. As she rose in the ranks, so did her income. In her current role as material manager, Andrea makes approximately $118,000 per year plus full benefits and stock options.

The parties argued frequently about Steven's inability to earn money and send out bills to clients. The arguments sometimes turned physical. Steven testified that Andrea slapped him and kneed him in the groin. Andrea testified that Steven placed his hands around her neck. No party called the police, however, and there was no conviction of any crime associated with the parties’ behavior toward one another. When Andrea filed her petition for dissolution, she obtained an ex parte injunction against Steven.

The parties were able to stipulate to the value of most of their property. The parties disputed custody of the children, with Steven seeking joint physical care, while Andrea stipulated to joint custody but rejected the notion of joint physical care.

After a trial, the district court entered its order in this case. The district court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children but awarded physical care to Andrea. For purposes of calculating child support, the trial court assumed that Andrea's yearly income was $118,000 per year. While it was difficult to determine Steven's income based on current records, the district court concluded that Steven earned, or should be able to earn, $36,000 per year. As a result, Steven was ordered to pay child support of $614 per month pursuant to this court's child support guidelines.

The district court next turned to the question of property distribution. After listing the residence and resolving a handful of disputes regarding valuation of certain items, the district court divided the assets between the parties. After a cash equalization payment from Andrea to Steven, each party received assets valued at $359,316.

After making the property distribution, the district court turned to the question of whether Steven was entitled to alimony. The district court canvassed the caselaw regarding alimony. The district court, citing In re Marriage of Fleener , 247 N.W.2d 219, 220 (Iowa 1976), noted that alimony is not an absolute right and depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. The district court, citing In re Marriage of Francis , 442 N.W.2d 59, 63 (Iowa 1989) (en banc), identified from our caselaw three types of alimony: rehabilitative, reimbursement, and traditional. With respect to traditional alimony, the district court noted the factors of "(1) the earning capacity of each party, and (2) their present standards of living and ability to pay balanced against their relative needs." In re Marriage of Williams , 449 N.W.2d 878, 883 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989). The district court declared, however, that the discretionary award of alimony could be awarded only after the court considered the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21A(1)(a )(j ) (2017).

The district court determined that the record did not support alimony for Steven. The district court held that Steven's employment circumstances over time had not changed but that Andrea, through her own determination, improved her earning capacity. The district court declared that under the circumstances, "[t]raditional alimony would not be appropriate based upon the length of the marriage and the earning capacity of both parties." The district court further declared that there was no basis for rehabilitative alimony or reimbursement alimony. As a result, the district court concluded that Steven would not receive an award of alimony.

Steven appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals awarded Steven three years of alimony in the amount of $2395 per month. The court of appeals left the property distribution of the district court undisturbed. Andrea filed a petition for further review. We granted the petition.

When we grant further review, we may exercise our discretion in determining which issues to consider. In re Marriage of Schenkelberg , 824 N.W.2d 481, 483 (Iowa 2012) ; Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. , 813 N.W.2d 250, 255 (Iowa 2012). We decline to address the property distribution issues raised in this appeal. Therefore, the ruling of the court of appeals on the property distribution stands. We consider on further review only the question of whether Steven is entitled to alimony.

Upon our de novo review, we conclude that Steven is not entitled to alimony on the record presented.

II. Standard of Review.

Under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.907, "Review in equity cases shall be de novo." On appeal, "We give weight to the factual determinations made by the district court; however, their findings are not binding upon [this Court]." In re Marriage of Gust , 858 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2015).

III. Discussion.
A. Positions of the Parties.

1. Steven. Steven asserts that the district court erred in failing to award him alimony. He asserts that a sixteen-year marriage is sufficient to support an award of traditional alimony. See Schenkelberg , 824 N.W.2d at 486 ("[The couple was] married for sixteen years, and thus, the length of the marriage merits support payments."); Fenchel v. Fenchel , 268 N.W.2d 207, 210 (Iowa 1978) (finding that, in the case of a sixteen-year marriage, alimony was justified).

Assuming the length of marriage was sufficient to support an award of traditional alimony, Steven asserts that the district court erred in finding that Steven has an earning capacity similar to Andrea. He claims that he has never generated near the income that Andrea currently earns. He notes that during the past four years, Andrea reported income over $100,000 per year, while his income was never greater than $16,847 per year, with two years of losses of income.

Steven points out that at the hearing, Andrea asserted that Steven's income potential was $5000 per month, or $60,000 per year. The district court, Steven asserts, ultimately imputed an annual salary of $36,000 per year to Steven, compared to Andrea's $118,000 per year plus benefits and stock options. Steven thus argues that Andrea and Steven are on "opposite ends of the employment spectrum."

Steven argues that alimony is necessary to support his style of living developed during the course of the marriage. Steven asserts that at the time of their marriage, the parties had no assets. During the sixteen years of marriage, they accumulated a net worth in excess of $700,000. Under the circumstances, an award of alimony is appropriate to support his lifestyle.

Steven argues that the nature of the property distribution is a factor in support of granting alimony. He points out that a majority of the assets awarded to him are nonliquid and are nonrevenue generating. To the extent he was awarded liquid assets, the assets are mostly retirement funds that he cannot liquidate without penalty. He was also left with all of the parties’ marital debts of $57,853.

On the level of spousal support, Steven points to our decision in In re Marriage of Michael , 839 N.W.2d 630, 632, 635–39 (Iowa 2013), which was more recently cited with approval in Gust , 858 N.W.2d at 412, where we approved alimony that amounted to 31% of the difference in income between the spouses. Using that figure as a benchmark, Steven asserts that alimony between $2395 per month and $3329 per month is justified. Steven claims that Andrea has sufficient funds after payment of expenses to satisfy the alimony award.

2. Andrea. Andrea resists payment of alimony to Steven. In her brief, Andrea incorporates passages of the district court's order verbatim. Andrea notes that Steven's employment circumstances did not change over the course of the marriage and that he continued to be satisfied serving his clients. Despite the possibility of well-paying snow removal jobs in winter months, Andrea notes that Steven did not consider expanding his work to increase his income.

According to Andrea, the record did not suggest that his income was in any way limited by his attending to the needs of the children. She notes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Upon the Petition Miller v. & Concerning Karri Ann Miller (In re Miller)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 19, 2021
    ...of their home.II. Standard of Review. In an equity action, such as dissolution of marriage, our review is de novo. In re Marriage of Mann , 943 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Iowa 2020) (citing Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 ). "We give weight to the factual determinations made by the district court; however, their......
  • In re Mills
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 16, 2022
    ...a combined unit to separate units and one spouse needs temporary financial assistance while making that shift. See In re Marriage of Mann , 943 N.W.2d 15, 23 (Iowa 2020) ("[T]ransitional alimony is usually appropriate in the context of a traditional marriage where a spouse has surrendered e......
  • In re Marriage of Mills
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 16, 2022
    ...unit to separate units and one spouse needs 20 temporary financial assistance while making that shift. See In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15, 23 (Iowa 2020) ("[T]ransitional alimony is usually appropriate in the context of a traditional marriage where a spouse has surrendered economic o......
  • In re Pazhoor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 18, 2022
    ...as the final decision on the remaining issues raised on appeal. See id. Our review of alimony awards is de novo. In re Marriage of Mann , 943 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Iowa 2020). We give the district court considerable latitude, In re Marriage of Gust , 858 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2015), and will only ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT