IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PEGGY L. STRAIT AND DONALD A. STRAIT Upon the Petition of PEGGY L. STRAIT, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning DONALD A. STRAIT, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-438 / 06-1956
Filed July 12, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PEGGY L. STRAIT
AND DONALD A. STRAIT
Upon the Petition of
PEGGY L. STRAIT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
DONALD A. STRAIT,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D. J. Stovall, Judge.
Peggy Strait appeals the property division provision of her decree of
dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Vandel, Des Moines, for appellant.
Christine Keenan of Feilmeyer, Feilmeyer, Keenan, Forbes & Fultz,
P.L.C., Ames, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
BAKER, J.
Peggy Strait appeals the property division provision of her decree of
dissolution of marriage. We affirm.
I. Background and Facts
Peggy and Donald Strait were married on August 2, 2002. Peggy entered
the marriage with substantial premarital assets and little debt, while Donald had
few assets and substantial debt. 1 No children were born to the marriage. The
marriage was dissolved by decree on November 8, 2006.
At the time of the dissolution, both parties were employed full-time, Peggy
earning $9.57 per hour, and Donald earning $15.50 per hour. They owned two
trucks, with virtually no equity in either, and a Harley Davidson “Fat Boy”
motorcycle, with approximately $7000 in equity. They owed $12,714 in credit
card debt and $4000 from a deficiency mortgage debt Donald incurred prior to
the marriage.
Peggy and Donald own a home in Boone, Iowa.
When the home was
purchased, Peggy paid approximately $50,000 from her premarital funds as a
down payment on the house. She also spent approximately $7000 from inherited
funds to make improvements on the house. They later refinanced the home,
drawing out most of the equity to pay off debts and to purchase a motorcycle for
Donald.
The home has a value of approximately $110,000, and carries a
$97,104 mortgage.
1
Peggy’s assets included over $50,000 in equity in a home in Humboldt, Iowa,
approximately $10,000 in stocks and bonds, and a 1998 Dodge Dakota, which she
estimated to be worth $14,000 at the time of the marriage. Donald had few assets and
owed approximately $12,000 in total debt.
3
The district court distributed (1) the marital home to Peggy, (2) one of the
trucks to each party, (3) the “Fat Boy” motorcycle to Donald, and (4) all of the
credit card and deficiency mortgage debt to Donald. Peggy appeals.
II. Merits
We conduct a de novo review of dissolution proceedings. Iowa R. App. P.
6.4.
We accord the district court considerable latitude and will disturb the
property distribution only when there has been a failure to do equity.
In re
Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 2005) (citing In re Marriage of
Romanelli, 570 N.W.2d 761, 763 (Iowa 1997)).
Peggy contends the district court erred in failing to credit her for the
premarital property she brought into the marriage and for her inherited property.
She also contends the district court erred in failing to require that Donald
reimburse her for the money she paid to eliminate his premarital debt.
Iowa is an “equitable distribution” state for purposes of dividing property in
a marriage dissolution. Id. (citing In re Marriage of McNerney, 417 N.W.2d 205,
207 (Iowa 1987)). Marital property is to be distributed equitably, considering the
factors outlined in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (2005). Id. Among the factors to
consider are the length of the marriage, the property brought to the marriage by
each party, and the earning capacity of each party. Iowa Code § 598.21(1).
“Equitable distribution” does not necessarily mean an “equal” division of
marital property. Schriner, 695 N.W.2d at 496 (citing McNerney, 417 N.W.2d at
207). “The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each circumstance.”
In re Marriage of Hass, 538 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing In re
Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991)). We “look to the
4
economic provisions of the decree as a whole in assessing the equity of the
property division.” In re Marriage of Dean, 642 N.W.2d 321, 325 (Iowa Ct. App.
2002).
In some cases, the property which the parties bring into the marriage may
justify a full credit, but that is not always the case. In re Marriage of Wendell, 581
N.W.2d 197, 199 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (citing In re Marriage of Miller, 552
N.W.2d 460, 465 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996)). “A premarital asset is not otherwise set
aside like gifted or inherited property.” Id. Where there were “wide disparities
between the assets of the parties at the time of the marriage,” however, the
length of the marriage is an important factor in determining how marital property
is divided. In re Marriage of Wallace, 315 N.W.2d 827, 831 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981).
The dissipation of assets may also be a factor in distributing marital
assets. In re Marriage of Burgess, 568 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
Where, however, a spouse knows of an obligation before the marriage, knows
payment of the obligation will be a part of the marriage, and acquiesces to the
payments during the marriage, a specific setoff for that debt as part of the
property distribution is inappropriate. Id. at 829.
Peggy came into the marriage with approximately $50,000 in equity in her
home. She had also received an inheritance in 1998. The amount remaining
from that inheritance at the time of the marriage is unclear, but appears to be in
excess of $10,000. In purchasing a new home, remodeling that home, and other
purchases, the parties squandered most of these assets during their marriage.
The adjudication of property rights involves a division of both assets and
liabilities. In re Marriage of Johnson, 299 N.W.2d 466, 467 (Iowa 1980). “The
5
allocation of marital debts between the parties is as integral a part of the property
division as is the apportionment of marital assets.” Id. Division of property is
based on a spouse’s “right to a just and equitable share of that property which
has been accumulated by the parties as the result of their joint efforts during the
years of the marriage.” Knipfer v. Knipfer, 259 Iowa 347, 353, 144 N.W.2d 140,
143 (1966) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Where assets have been
dissipated as a result of a couple’s joint efforts, the waste should also be shared.
In such cases, the court may decline to give credit for the premarital assets. See
Burgess, 568 N.W.2d at 829 (declining to set off for dissipation of assets where
wife acquiesced to the expenditures throughout the marriage).
The district court awarded Peggy assets and debts with a net value of
approximately $8000. Donald was awarded assets and debts with a negative net
value of approximately $3000.
Thus, Peggy received approximately $11,000
more than Donald, or roughly what she brought into the marriage from her
inheritance. See Iowa Code § 598.21(2) (stating property inherited by either
party prior to or during the course of the marriage is generally not subject to a
property division); Hass, 538 N.W.2d at 892 (noting that, in short-term marriages,
the claim of either party to property inherited by the other is minimal at best). We
believe the district court acted equitably in allocating the assets and liabilities of
the parties in this fashion.
We have considered all issues raised on appeal.
We find the district
court’s division of property to be fair and equitable and affirm the property
distribution as set forth by the district court.
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.
