Marriage of McNamer, In re, 89-373
| Decision Date | 25 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-373,89-373 |
| Citation | 452 N.W.2d 812 |
| Parties | In re The MARRIAGE OF Virginia F. McNAMER and Robert G. McNamer. Upon the Petition of Virginia F. McNamer, Appellee, And Concerning Robert G. McNamer, Appellant. In re The MARRIAGE OF Virginia F. McNAMER and Robert G. McNamer. Upon the Petition of Virginia F. McNamer, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning Robert G. McNamer, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Victor V. Sprengelmeyer, Dubuque, for appellant.
Mark J. Sullivan of Reynolds & Kenline, Dubuque, for appellee.
Considered by SCHLEGEL, P.J., and HAYDEN and HABHAB, JJ.
Robert appeals the property division of a district court decree of dissolution and an order setting the supersedeas bond. We affirm the trial court.
Robert McNamer and Virginia McNamer were married on December 4, 1942. Five children were born of this marriage but all are adults. Both parties were born in 1923.
On January 4, 1988, Virginia McNamer filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The case proceeded to trial.
At trial, and on this appeal, the key dispute concerned the business owned by the parties, Materials and Equipment, Inc. The corporation sells and services foundry equipment and supplies. At the time of this dissolution, Robert owned sixteen shares of the corporation and Virginia owned fourteen. The corporation also had made substantial contributions to a defined benefits retirement plan. Robert's share of this plan is approximately eighty-six percent, Virginia's share is about nine percent. At trial, the parties disputed the valuation of this corporation as well as the method of dividing the stock and retirement assets.
After trial, the district court entered its decree of dissolution. The court estimated the fair and reasonable market value of the corporation at $530,000. Robert was awarded the entirety of the business. Virginia was awarded her entire share of the corporate retirement of $77,509 and a significant share of Robert's retirement account totaling about $678,868. Based on this award, the court awarded no spousal support. Robert was awarded the remaining interest in his retirement plan, approximately valued at $278,245. Robert filed an appeal from this decree.
Following this appeal, Robert attempted to file a supersedeas bond. The district court determined that the bond filed was inadequate and ordered Robert to file a supersedeas bond with appropriate corporate surety in the amount of $945,500. Robert appealed from this order as well. Both appeals were consolidated by supreme court order.
Our scope of review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. Although not bound by the trial court's determination of factual findings, we will give considerable weight to them, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(7). Prior cases, though helpful, have little precedential value since we must base our decision here primarily on the particular circumstance of the parties presently before us. In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983).
Robert contends the trial court overvalued the business, and because the property division is based on this improper valuation it is inequitable. The trial judge had evidence of Virginia's expert and of Robert himself to use in evaluating the business. Virginia's expert was clearly very knowledgeable concerning the valuation of the business and offered the court several different methods and figures to choose from. Robert only offered what, in his opinion, the business was worth. The court accepted one of the figures supplied by Virginia's witness and we cannot say that the valuation chosen by the court was incorrect.
Once the valuation is correct, we must determine whether the property division was equitable. The criteria governing property division are now contained in Iowa Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Malena
...thereby allowing one spouse to continue to provide for himself and any other obligations he may have." In re Marriage of McNamer, 452 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa Ct.App.1990).Michael notes the value of the business found by the trial court—$143,000—was fifty greater than what he paid for the busi......
-
Vander Pol v. Vander Pol
...together, thereby allowing one spouse to continue to provide for himself and any other obligations he may have." In re Marriage of McNamer, 452 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa App.1990). The New Jersey Supreme Court stated that courts should seek to eliminate any sources of strife or friction in devi......
-
In re the Marriage of Price
...the business will not continue to grow, affording Michael a source of income to finance an alimony payment. Cf. In re Marriage of McNamer, 452 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa App. 1990) (noting business owner had ready access to cash from business whose value was likely to continue to We conclude Cha......
-
In re Marriage of Swenson, No. 6-579/05-2123 (Iowa App. 2/28/2007)
...made no contribution to Craig's acquisition of the "performance units" that resulted in this cash payment. See In re Marriage of McNamer, 452 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (stating court should consider "the contributions and sacrifices made by each toward the acquisition of the prop......