IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PHILIP L. TILLMAN AND ELIZABETH ANN TILLMAN Upon the Petition of PHILIP L. TILLMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning ELIZABETH ANN TILLMAN n/k/a ELIZABETH ANN VRIEZELAAR, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-186 / 08-1084
Filed May 6, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PHILIP L. TILLMAN
AND ELIZABETH ANN TILLMAN
Upon the Petition of
PHILIP L. TILLMAN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
ELIZABETH ANN TILLMAN n/k/a
ELIZABETH ANN VRIEZELAAR,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Marsha Bergan,
Judge.
The respondent appeals from the spousal support provision of the district
court‟s order dissolving her marriage to the petitioner. AFFIRMED.
Stephen Jackson, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Guy Booth, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Elizabeth Tillman appeals from the spousal support provision of the
decree dissolving her marriage to Philip Tillman. She asserts that the spousal
support award should have been in a greater amount and for a longer duration.
We review dissolution proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage
of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822, 824-25 (Iowa 2008). We give weight to the factual
findings of the district court, especially when considering the credibility of
witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). “Although our
review of the trial court‟s award 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 Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257
(Iowa 1996).
An award of spousal support depends on the circumstances of a particular
case. Becker, 756 N.W.2d at 825. In making a spousal support award, the
district court must consider the statutory factors enumerated in Iowa Code
section 598.21A (Supp. 2005). In the present case, the district court found that
the parties had been married for over thirty-three years and each had sacrificed
some career opportunities while the other obtained a degree.
However,
Elizabeth, who was fifty-six years old, was unemployable due to her medical
conditions. Thus, the district court awarded traditional alimony. See Becker, 756
N.W.2d at 826 (“Traditional spousal support is „payable for life or so long as a
spouse is incapable of self-support.‟” (citations omitted)).
Upon a close examination of the evidence presented to the district court,
we first observe the distribution of assets was fair to both parties.
This is
3
important as one factor we consider in reviewing an award of spousal support is
the amount of property settlement. See In re Marriage of Griffin, 356 N.W.2d
606, 608 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984) (“Property division and alimony must be
considered together in evaluating their individual sufficiency. They are neither
made nor subject to evaluation in isolation from one another.”). In this case there
were substantial assets to be distributed and as such Elizabeth left the marriage
with assets, apart from the awarded spousal support. In addition, it is significant
to note that Elizabeth will be protected in her retirement by receiving fifty percent
of the monthly benefit amount of Philip‟s Rockwell defined-benefit retirement
account, as well as receiving an equal portion of the Rockwell retirement savings
plan and an equal portion of the Edward Jones retirement account. Additionally,
Philip was ordered to maintain Elizabeth as a beneficiary of his fairly substantial
life insurance policy.
An award of spousal support is a balancing of the equities. In re Marriage
of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). We conclude that the
district court considered the appropriate factors in making an award. See Iowa
Code § 598.21A. For the reasons noted above and other reasons considered by
the district court, on our de novo review we decline to modify the spousal support
award in either amount or duration. We affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.29(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e).
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.
