Marriage of Anderson, In re, 92-1338

• Decision Date: 28 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 92-1338,92-1338
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Odie L. ANDERSON and Patricia Sue Anderson. Upon the Petition of Odie L. Anderson, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, And Concerning Patricia Sue Anderson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 99

522 N.W.2d 99

In re the MARRIAGE OF Odie L. ANDERSON and Patricia Sue Anderson.

Upon the Petition of Odie L. Anderson, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

And Concerning Patricia Sue Anderson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 92-1338.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

June 28, 1994.

Robert W. Conrad, Knoxville, for appellant.

Constance Peschang Stannard, Iowa City, for appellee.

Considered by HAYDEN, P.J., and HABHAB and CADY, JJ.

HAYDEN, Presiding Judge.

Odie and Patricia Anderson were married in 1982. The parties met while Odie was a patient at the veteran's hospital in Knoxville for treatment of alcoholism. At the time of trial, Odie had been given a one hundred-percent disability rating. Odie receives veteran's disability pay in the amount of $1548 per month and $429 per month in supplemental security. Patricia, an LPN, is employed as a ward clerk at the veteran's hospital in Knoxville, earning $1550 gross per month.

Odie entered the marriage with simply his personal belongings. Patricia owned a mobile home with an indebtedness of $8000, a 1972 pickup, and household goods. From 1982 to 1987 the parties moved around considerably. In Hills, Iowa, Odie and Patricia purchased a home pursuant to a rent-with-option-to-buy contract. In the spring of 1987 Odie was again hospitalized in Knoxville. Patricia had Odie quit claim his interest in the Hills home to her. The parties separated from 1987 to 1988, at which time they got back together for several months. They permanently separated in 1989.

Pursuant to the divorce decree, Odie was ordered to pay Patricia alimony in the amount of $300 per month for two years. Odie was also ordered to pay $1000 towards Patricia's attorney fees and was ordered to pay the I.T.T. Financial Services bill in the amount of $9507.39. Odie was awarded his personal belongings, his car, and property in Knoxville known as Whitebreast. Patricia was ordered to pay for the remaining debts of the marriage. Patricia was awarded the Hills home and was awarded her retirement plans and car. Odie appeals, and Patricia cross-appeals. We affirm.

Odie maintains the district court erred in ordering him to pay Patricia $300 per month in alimony, the $9507 I.T.T. debt, and $1000 towards her attorney fees, when his sole source of income is his disability payments and supplemental security income. Odie argues the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution denies the courts the power under Iowa Code sections 598.21(1) and 598.21(3) (1991) to redistribute his disability payments. Odie contends, pursuant to federal regulations, his supplemental security income is not subject to garnishment, and is therefore not subject to legal process to pay for alimony, even though social security benefits are now subject to legal process to pay for child support.

Patricia argues in her cross-appeal because she has basically supported Odie since 1982, she should receive reimbursement alimony as well as rehabilitative alimony. Patricia alleges Odie received a $30,000 lump-sum payment for back pay when his disability rating rose to one hundred percent. Patricia also complains because Odie's income is not subject to garnishment, he would not be forced to pay the I.T.T. debt. Patricia requests she be awarded $500 per month alimony for five years and an increase in the award of attorney fees.

We first address Odie's contention the district court erred in awarding alimony because his income is limited to monies derived from his veteran's disability and SSI income.

This is an appeal in an equity action, and this court reviews the matter de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. This court's duty is to review the entire record and adjudicate rights anew from the credible evidence on issues properly presented and preserved. In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981). This court gives weight to the fact findings of the trial court but is not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(7). Prior cases have little precedential value, and this court bases its decisions primarily on the particular circumstances of the parties presently before it. In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983).

The issue raised by the appellant has been answered by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987). The Rose case involved nonpayment of child support as opposed to nonpayment of alimony. However, both are viewed as familial support by the United States Supreme Court in Rose. 481 U.S. at 631-32, 107 S.Ct. at 2037, 95 L.Ed.2d at 611. The Rose case involved a disabled veteran whose sole means of support was his V.A. checks. The state court held him in contempt for failure to pay child support. The U.S. Supreme Court held a state court has jurisdiction to hold a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, even if the veteran's only means of satisfying his obligation is to use veteran's benefits received as compensation for a service connected disability. 481 U.S. at 619, 107 S.Ct. at 2030, 95 L.Ed.2d at 604. The Court held:

Neither the Veteran's Benefits provisions of Title 38 nor the garnishment provisions of the Child Support Enforcement Act of Title 42 indicate unequivocally that a veteran's disability benefits are provided solely for that veteran's support. We hold, therefore, that as enacted these federal statutes were not in conflict with and thus did not preempt § 36-820 (the Tennessee child support statute). Nor did the Circuit Court's efforts to enforce its order of child support by holding appellant in contempt transgress the congressional intent behind the federal statutes.

481 U.S. at 636, 107 S.Ct. at 2039, 95 L.Ed.2d at 614.

The Rose Court discussed the case of Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655, 70 S.Ct. 398, 90 L.Ed. 424 (1950), to support its position child support is not excluded from these benefits. The Court recognized the Wissner holding as follows:

[I]n reaching what was clearly an alternative holding in Wissner that a community property division of the insurance proceeds would constitute a "seizure" in violation of a provision against ...