IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY JEANNE CLARK AND LESTER EUGENE CLARK, JR. Upon the Petition of MARY JEANNE CLARK, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning LESTER EUGENE CLARK, JR., Respondent-Appellan t/Cross-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-294 / 06-1778
Filed May 23, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY JEANNE CLARK
AND LESTER EUGENE CLARK, JR.
Upon the Petition of
MARY JEANNE CLARK,
Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
And Concerning
LESTER EUGENE CLARK, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, James M.
Richardson, Judge.
Lester Clark, Jr. appeals the spousal support and attorney fee provisions
of the supplemental decree of dissolution of marriage. Mary Jeanne Clark crossappeals the spousal support provision of the supplemental decree. AFFIRMED.
David Richter, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
J.C. Salvo and Bryan Swain of Salvo, Deren, Schneck & Lauterbach, P.C.,
Harlan, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
BAKER, J.
Lester Clark, Jr. appeals the spousal support and attorney fee provisions
of the supplemental decree of dissolution of marriage. Mary Jeanne Clark crossappeals the spousal support provision of the decree. We affirm on all issues.
I. Background and Facts
Lester Clark, Jr. and Mary Jeanne Clark were married in September 1989.
Two children were born of the marriage, Kyle in May 1991 and Steven in
December 1993. In July 2005, the parties separated, and the marriage was
dissolved by decree in September 2006.
During their marriage, Lester worked at various farming endeavors. 1 Mary
Jeanne, a dental hygienist, stayed home with the children when they were young
and returned to part-time employment when the youngest started preschool.
During the marriage, she had primary responsibility for caring for the children and
managing the family home. The farming operations were successful, and the
family enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle, including vacations, new vehicles, a new
home, and expensive hobbies. At the time they were married, the parties owned
103 acres. By the end of the marriage, through a combination of purchases and
inheritances, they had increased their land ownership to more than 800 acres.
A September 2006 decree of dissolution of marriage set forth the terms
which had been agreed to by the parties, including joint legal custody for both
boys and joint physical care of Kyle, Mary Jeanne having physical care of
1
For child support purposes, Lester’s annual salary was calculated at $116,000. For
the purpose of determining the spousal support and attorney fee provisions, the trial
court found Lester “should receive a minimum of $100,000 per year from his various
farming endeavors.” The court found Mary Jeanne “can anticipate a yearly income of
$30,000 . . . as a dental hygienist,” based on continued part-time employment.
3
Steven, and Lester paying $1748 per month in child support. The stipulated
property division included Mary Jeanne receiving the home free of indebtedness,
Lester receiving all 800-plus acres of farmland and everything related to the
farming operations, Lester paying Mary Jeanne a cash settlement of $425,000
($75,000 payable at the time of the decree and the balance payable in monthly
installments over the next seven years), and Lester assuming most of the family
debts. The issues of spousal support and attorney fees were reserved for trial.
On October 2, 2006, the trial court entered a supplemental decree ordering
Lester to pay Mary Jeanne monthly spousal support of $1500 until she reaches
age sixty-two and $15,400 for Mary Jeanne’s attorney fees. Lester appeals the
spousal support and attorney fee provisions of the supplemental decree. Mary
Jeanne cross-appeals the spousal support provision.
II. Merits
Our review in equity cases is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We are not
bound by the trial court’s findings of facts, but we give them deference, especially
when considering the credibility of the witnesses. In re Marriage of Probasco,
676 N.W.2d 179, 183 (Iowa 2004); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). An
award of alimony is not an absolute right, but depends on the particular
circumstances of each case. In re Marriage of Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d 309, 319
(Iowa 1996). Although we review the trial court’s award of spousal support de
novo, we give the court “considerable latitude in making this determination based
on the criteria” specified in Iowa Code section 598.21A(1) (Supp. 2005). In re
Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 540 (Iowa 2005). We will disturb the trial
4
court’s discretionary determination only when there has been a failure to do
equity. Id.
This deference to the trial court’s determination is decidedly in the
public interest. When appellate courts unduly refine these
important, but often conjectural, judgment calls, they thereby foster
appeals in hosts of cases, at staggering expense to the parties
wholly disproportionate to any benefit they might hope to realize.
In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996).
Spousal support “is a stipend to a spouse in lieu of the other spouse’s
legal obligation for support.” In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Iowa
1989).
It “has traditionally taken the place of support that would have been
provided had the marriage continued.” Probasco, 676 N.W.2d at 185. Pursuant
to Iowa Code sections 598.21(1)(h) and 598.21A(1)(c), the court may consider
property division in connection with a request for spousal support. 2 Id.
Lester contends the trial court erred in granting spousal support in this case
because Mary Jeanne, who earns thirty-two dollars per hour and has no
mortgage or car payment, is capable of being self-supporting. He argues his
monthly payment on the property settlement will allow Mary Jeanne to be selfsupporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during
the marriage.
Lester also contends his standard of living will be negatively
impacted by the debt load imposed by the property settlement “even before
imposing the additional burden of alimony.” Mary Jeanne, on the other hand,
2
In addition to the property division, a court may consider: (1) the length of the
marriage, (2) the age and health of the parties, (3) the educational level of the parties,
(4) the earning capacity of the party seeking support, (5) the feasibility of the party
seeking support becoming self-supporting, (6) the tax consequences, (7) any mutual
agreements made by the parties, (8) any antenuptial agreement, and (9) other factors
the court deems relevant. Iowa Code § 598.21A(1).
5
contends an award of spousal support is appropriate because her earning
capacity will not be enough to sustain the “very comfortable lifestyle” the parties
enjoyed during the marriage but contends the trial court’s award was inadequate
because Lester’s assets enable him to pay $2500 per month in spousal support
“while maintaining the lifestyle he enjoyed during the marriage.”
Taking into
account all factors, including the property distribution, we cannot say that the trial
court failed to do equity in awarding $1500 in monthly spousal support. We
therefore refuse to disturb its decision on appeal. Lester’s desire to retain all of
the farmland and other farming assets clearly motivated his willingness to agree
to the cash property settlement. Any negative impact on his standard of living
imposed by the property settlement does not convince us that an award of
spousal support is inequitable. We are also not convinced that increasing the
award to $2500 is required. Mary Jeanne possesses the skills and education to
earn substantial wages.
Considering all of the economic provisions of the
decrees, she should be able to be self-supporting at a standard of living
reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. See Iowa Code §
598.21A(1)(f).
Lester argues that the trial court erred in granting attorney fees. “An award
of attorney fees rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be
disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of
Romanelli, 570 N.W.2d 761, 765 (Iowa 1997). We find no abuse of discretion in
the trial court requiring Lester to pay $15,400 toward Mary Jeanne’s attorney
fees.
In view of the award of spousal support and the property distribution,
however, we reject her claim for attorney fees on appeal.
6
We conclude the trial court properly awarded spousal support and attorney
fees to Mary Jeanne. We decline to award her appellate attorney fees.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
