IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAE L PETER MINNAERT AND ANNETTE RACHEL MINNAERT Upon the Petition of MICHAEL PETER MINNAERT, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning ANNETTE RACHEL MINNAERT, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-298 / 06-2003
Filed June 13, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL PETER MINNAERT AND ANNETTE
RACHEL MINNAERT
Upon the Petition of
MICHAEL PETER MINNAERT,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
ANNETTE RACHEL MINNAERT,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Richard J. Vogel,
Judge.
Respondent-appellant appeals from the district court’s order terminating
alimony. REVERSED.
Eric Borseth and Judy Johnson of Borseth Law Office, Altoona, for appellant
Nancy L. Burk, Toledo, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Annette Rachel Minnaert, now Annette Rachel Goodrich, appeals from the
district court’s decision terminating alimony that Michael Peter Minnaert was ordered
to pay under a March 2005 decree dissolving her marriage. We reverse.
Background and Proceedings
Annette was born in 1948 and Michael in 1945. They had been married
nearly thirty-two years at the time of their dissolution in March of 2005. For most of
the marriage Michael worked full time for the United States Postal Service and was
working for the service at the time of the dissolution. His annual salary was $46,698
and he had excellent health insurance. Annette was a homemaker and worked parttime away from the home. At the time of the dissolution she worked full-time for
Pamida and had an annual income of about $16,000 but did not have health
insurance benefits. The parties had a net worth of between $9,000 and $22,000. In
addition they had unidentified pension rights and Michael had money in the Postal
Service thrift plan he had through the Postal Service. The dissolution decree
confirmed the parties’ agreement as to the division of certain assets and liabilities
and divided others. It appears the net result was that Annette received less than
$20,000 in assets.
The issue of alimony was litigated and Michael was ordered to pay Annette
alimony of $600 a month for a period of nine years. The district court did not define
the type of alimony, nor did it provide for the termination of alimony at any time prior
to the expiration of the nine-year period.
3
In September of 2005 Annette remarried. In April of 2006 Michael filed the
application leading to this appeal, contending Annette’s remarriage was a
substantial change in circumstances warranting termination of alimony.
The evidence at trial was that Annette’s current husband worked for a school
district as a janitor and a school bus driver but his income was not revealed.
Apparently he owned a home that was mortgaged. He had health insurance, but
Annette testified it would cost her $700 a month to be added to his policy.
At the time of the dissolution hearing Annette was scheduled for surgery.
She had the surgery after the dissolution and as a result, lost her full-time job. At
the time of the modification hearing she worked about twenty hours a week for Old
Navy in retail sales. She had made $9.00 an hour at Pamida and made $7.75 an
hour at Old Navy. She continues to have health problems and has monthly
expenses for prescription drugs. She is still covered under the COBRA provisions of
Michael’s medical insurance. She testified that because of her health problems,
obtaining health insurance would be difficult. She was not certain how much longer
she could be covered under Michael’s medical insurance. Her testimony indicated
that she had problems paying her expenses.
At the time of modification, Michael continued to be employed by the Postal
Service. His annual salary had increased to $52,474. He too had remarried. His
wife is employed at a temporary job.
The district court ordered the termination of the alimony, finding Annette had
failed to show extraordinary circumstances to support it being continued.
On appeal Annette contends the alimony should not have been terminated
because (1) it was rehabilitative or reimbursement alimony, and (2) if it was
4
traditional alimony it should not terminate because she established the extraordinary
circumstances necessary to support its continuation. Michael contends it was
traditional alimony and Annette failed to show extraordinary circumstances. Both
parties request appellate attorney fees.
Scope of Review
Equity proceedings, such as modifications of dissolution decrees, are
reviewed de novo on appeal. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage of McCurnin, 681
N.W.2d 322, 327 (Iowa 2004).
Trial courts have reasonable discretion in
determining whether dissolution decree provisions are necessary or advisable. In re
Marriage of Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486, 490 (Iowa 1995). The trial court’s decision
will be disturbed only if it failed to do equity. Id. “We reach our conclusion, as to
whether equity has been done, based on our de novo review.” In re Marriage of
Wahlert, 400 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Iowa 1987) (citing Iowa R. App. P. 6.4).
Analysis
Neither the dissolution court nor the modification court defined the type of
alimony Annette received. The general rule in Iowa is that while the subsequent
remarriage of a spouse does not result in automatic termination of an alimony
obligation, it shifts the burden to the recipient to show that extraordinary
circumstances exist that require the continuation of the alimony payments. In re
Marriage of Shima, 360 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1985); see also In re Marriage of
Woodward, 229 N.W.2d 274, 280 (Iowa 1975); Myers v. Myers, 195 N.W.2d 113,
114 (Iowa 1972).
There is, however, one exception.
Reimbursement alimony, which is
predicated upon economic sacrifices made by one spouse during the marriage that
5
directly enhance the future earning capacity of the other, is not subject to
modification or termination until full compensation is achieved or until the paying
spouse’s death, whichever occurs first. See In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d
59, 64 (Iowa 1989).
We reject Annette’s argument the alimony is reimbursement. The dissolution
court did not find it to be, nor did it make any factual findings indicating Annette
made sacrifices that helped Michael earn a substantial increase in his income.
Reimbursement alimony is predicated on economic sacrifices made by one spouse
during the marriage that directly enhance the future earning capacity of the other
spouse. See In re Marriage of Lalone, 469 N.W.2d 695, 698 (Iowa 1991). Annette
shared Michael’s income while the couple was married and is sharing the assets
and pension benefits the parties acquired during the marriage. See id.
We need not determine whether the alimony is rehabilitative or traditional.
Rehabilitative alimony, awarded as a way of supporting an economically dependent
spouse through a limited period of re-education or retraining following divorce, is
subject to modification. In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179, 187 (Iowa
2004); Francis, 442 N.W.2d at 63. After Annette’s remarriage, she has the burden
of showing extraordinary circumstances for continuance of either rehabilitative or
traditional alimony. Shima, 360 N.W.2d at 828.
We are bothered by the absence of any information about the financial
circumstances of Annette’s spouse. However, the record is clear that Annette
suffers from health problems, has expensive medical insurance, has difficulty paying
her bills, and is only employed part-time.
While her income has decreased,
Michael’s has increased. These are extraordinary circumstances supporting her
6
need for alimony. However, her husband is able to assist her in part and her
remarriage has decreased her need for the original monthly alimony payment of
$600. We therefore reverse the district court’s order terminating alimony and order
monthly alimony of $300 for the remainder of the nine-year period set by the
dissolution decree.
We award Annette $1,500 in appellate attorney fees. Costs on appeal are
taxed to Michael.
REVERSED.
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.
