IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEBO RA KAY KAMPMAN AND WAYNE ALLEN KAMPMAN Upon the Petition of DEBORA KAY KAMPMAN, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning WAYNE ALLEN KAMPMAN, Respondent-Appellan t/Cross-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-788 / 07-0731
Filed November 29, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEBORA KAY KAMPMAN AND WAYNE ALLEN
KAMPMAN
Upon the Petition of
DEBORA KAY KAMPMAN,
Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
And Concerning
WAYNE ALLEN KAMPMAN,
Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Stephen P.
Carroll, Judge.
Wayne Kampman appeals the district court’s award of traditional spousal
support. Deborah Kampman cross-appeals the court’s award of an inheritance
credit and a mortgage payment credit. AFFIRMED.
Andrea M. Miller of Miller & Miller, P.C., Hampton, for appellant.
Michael J. Cross of Cross Law Firm, Hampton, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
In this dissolution case, Wayne Kampman appeals the district court’s
award of traditional spousal support to Debora Kampman and Debora crossappeals the award of two credits to Wayne.
Because we believe the court’s
allowances for alimony and property division were equitable under the
circumstances, we affirm.
I.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
Wayne (fifty years) and Debora (forty-seven years) had been married
twenty-nine years at the time of the October 25, 2006, dissolution hearing.
During the marriage they had three sons, but only their seventeen-year-old son,
Aaron, still lives at home. On February 15, 2007, the district court awarded joint
legal custody to both Wayne and Debora, with physical care of Aaron to Wayne,
and required Debora to pay $377 per month in support until Aaron turns
eighteen.
II.
SCOPE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW.
On appeal, equity dissolution cases are reviewed de novo. Iowa R. App.
P 6.4; In re Marriage of Smith, 573 N.W.2d 924, 926 (Iowa 1998).
While we
give weight to the district court’s findings of fact, especially the credibility of the
witnesses, we are not bound by such findings. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g); In re
Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 539 (Iowa 2005).
III.
MERITS.
A. Traditional Spousal Support.
Debora was awarded traditional spousal support of $500 per month until
she or Wayne dies, she remarries, or Wayne turns sixty-six. Wayne argues
3
support is not appropriate because Debora is cohabitating with Mr. Sass and, in
the alternative, support is inappropriate and unnecessary.
Cohabitation is evidenced by: (1) an unrelated person of the opposite sex
living or residing in the dwelling house of the former spouse, (2) living together in
the manner of husband and wife, and (3) unrestricted access to the home. In re
Marriage of Ales, 592 N.W.2d 698, 702 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). See In re
Marriage of Harvey, 466 N.W.2d 916, 917 (Iowa 1991); In re Marriage of Gibson,
320 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa 1982).
Debra and Mr. Sass have had a relationship since April 2006, but we
agree with the district court’s conclusion the relationship has not risen to the level
of cohabitation. While Deborah and Mr. Sass spend four to six nights together
each week, they each have their own residences.
Although Debora has full
access to Mr. Sass’s home, he does not have full access to her home. Neither
Debora nor Mr. Sass is financially supporting the other. The record does not
support a finding that any of the three tests set out in Ales are present here.
We
also
reject
Wayne’s
alternative
argument
concerning
the
appropriateness of the court’s award of traditional spousal support. The statutory
factors considered in awarding support were correctly identified by the trial court.
See Iowa Code § 598.21A(1) (Supp. 2005). An award of spousal support is used
as a means of compensating the party who leaves the marriage at a financial
disadvantage, particularly where there is a large disparity in earnings.
In re
Marriage of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). Spousal support
4
is a discretionary award, dependent upon factors such as the length of the
marriage, each party’s age and earning capacity, the ability of the spouse
seeking support to become self-sufficient, and the relative need for support. In re
Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa 2005). Traditional support is
frequently used where the marriage is of long duration, life patterns have largely
been set, and the earning potential of both parties can be predicted with some
reliability. See In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62-63 (Iowa 1989).
Even though our review is de novo, we “accord the trial court considerable
latitude in making this determination and will disturb the ruling only when there
has been a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage of Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d 309, 319
(1996). The trial court ruled:
This is a marriage of substantial duration, about 29 years.
During this marriage of substantial duration, Debora sacrificed her
earning capacity by remaining at home with the children, allowing
Wayne to substantially increase his earning capacity. Because of
the duration of the marriage and because Wayne leaves the
marriage with almost three times the level of Debora’s earning
capacity, I conclude that traditional alimony in the sum of $500 per
month is fair and equitable.
We have considered Wayne’s multiple arguments in his attempt to
eliminate his spousal support obligation and reject them.
After our de novo
review, we agree with the trial court’s well-reasoned and thorough decision. We
are unable to conclude the trial court’s alimony award is inequitable.
B. Inherited Property.
The court granted Wayne a $25,425 credit for assets traceable to his 2003
inheritance of $42,000. Debora argues the court placed too high a value on the
minivan asset and argues it is inequitable to award a credit for Wayne’s inherited
property.
5
First, we see no reason to reduce the court’s valuation of the minivan.
Second, Iowa statutory law governs the treatment of inherited property in
dissolution cases:
Property inherited by either party . . . during the course of the
marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a
property division . . . except upon a finding that refusal to divide the
property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the
marriage.
Iowa Code § 598.21(6).
The statute provides inherited property may be divided as marital property
where the non-division would be unjust. The court did not award Wayne a credit
for the full $42,000 Wayne inherited.
traceable assets.
Rather, Wayne’s credit was limited to
We find the trial court’s granting a credit to Wayne for the
traceable portion of his inheritance to be equitable and not unjust.
C. Mortgage Payment Credit.
The court also awarded Wayne a credit for fifty per cent of the mortgage
payments he made from the time of separation until the entry of the decree.
Wayne remained in the family home during the parties’ pre-decree separation
and Aaron spent the majority of his time there as well.
increase the equity in the home.
The payments will
The decree provides the property will be sold
when Aaron graduates from high school and the proceeds divided. The division
was crafted by the trial court to result in an equal division of property. Deborah
cites no authority for her proposition the credit should be reduced to equal fifty
per cent of the reduction in principal rather than fifty per cent of the mortgage
payments. We agree with the trial court’s credit award.
6
Costs on appeal are divided equally between the parties.
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.
