IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KURT E. STEPANIAK AND JACQUELINE S. STEPANIAK Upon the Petition of KURT E. STEPANIAK, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning JACQUELINE S. STEPANIAK, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-341 / 08-1552
Filed May 29, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KURT E. STEPANIAK
AND JACQUELINE S. STEPANIAK
Upon the Petition of
KURT E. STEPANIAK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
JACQUELINE S. STEPANIAK,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve,
Judge.
Kurt Stepaniak appeals from the district court‟s award of alimony.
Jacqueline Stepaniak cross-appeals seeking an award of appellate attorney fees.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Richard A. Davidson of Lane & Waterman, Davenport, for appellant.
Steven H. Jacobs and Jean Z. Dickson of Betty, Neuman & McMahon,
Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Jacqueline and Kurt Stepaniak were married on May 21, 1982. Before
they were married, Jacqueline earned a bachelor‟s degree in sociology and a
master‟s degree in social work, and Kurt earned a bachelor‟s degree in political
science and history. Kurt began law school in 1980 and graduated in 1984. He
was employed full-time for roughly three out of the four years in which he was
enrolled in law school. He worked part-time during the remainder of his law
school education.
Jacqueline worked at various jobs during the first six years of the parties‟
marriage. The parties had children in 1984 and 1987. In 1988, they agreed it
would be best if Jacqueline quit her career to care for the children. Kurt worked
at several jobs, including a position as general counsel for Bosch Braking
Systems Corporation from 1993 to 1997. Kurt then obtained a position at KONE,
where he still worked at the time of trial. Kurt‟s annual income at KONE included
three parts: his salary, his bonus, and his stock options.
Kurt‟s income, as
reported on his tax returns, was $351,833 in 2004; $342,522 in 2005; $421,645
in 2006; and $449,501 in 2007.
The parties separated in August 2003 and have lived in separate
residences since. Neither of the children lives at home. During the separation,
Jacqueline remained in the marital home while Kurt moved to a rented condo.
Jacqueline sent Kurt a list of her bills, and Kurt deposited money in Jacqueline‟s
account to cover the expenses. Kurt usually gave Jacqueline between $5000
and $6000 per month for her expenses. Kurt also paid college expenses for the
3
children without contribution from Jacqueline. Jacqueline submitted to Kurt a list
of her expenses, which Kurt admitted as an exhibit at trial. The exhibit showed
that Jacqueline‟s monthly expenses at the time were $5,226.67.1 Though Kurt
argues Jacqueline‟s monthly expenses will be reduced after Jacqueline pays off
the mortgage on the marital home, the record shows that Jacqueline does not
intend to pay off the mortgage because it has a low interest rate.
Kurt filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on March 8, 2007. At the
time of trial, Jacqueline worked at the Mississippi Valley Welcome Center about
twenty hours per week earning $7.50 per hour. The record is unclear when she
acquired that position though the parties‟ tax returns show that Jacqueline
claimed no wages in 2004, wages of $2420 in 2005; $5453 in 2006; and $4729 in
2007. Jacqueline recently obtained a job as a “very part-time secretary” with the
LeClaire Chamber of Commerce, earning $250 per month.
Jacqueline also
applied to be a substitute aide at Pleasant Valley schools but only worked one
time at that position. Jacqueline applied for other similar positions but was not
hired. She was also considering taking classes to obtain her master‟s degree in
public administration. She estimated that this program would take five years, at
which point she could re-enter the job market at the age of fifty-eight.
Prior to trial, the parties agreed to a property distribution that awarded
each party roughly $950,000 of marital assets. Over $500,000 of the marital
assets Jacqueline received are liquid assets. The parties also agreed to retain
their own inherited funds, with Jacqueline keeping roughly $296,000 and Kurt
1
This amount did not account for taxes that Jacqueline would have to pay on the receipt
of alimony.
4
keeping roughly $654,000. In addition, the parties agreed to equally divide Kurt‟s
Bosch and KONE pensions using the formula set forth in In re Marriage of
Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255-57 (Iowa 1996).
According to this formula,
Jacqueline will receive $507.87 per month from Kurt‟s Bosch pension beginning
April 3, 2013. Jacqueline is also projected to receive $1826.64 per month from
Kurt‟s KONE pension beginning May 1, 2023.2 Also, Jacqueline will be eligible to
draw roughly $1160 per month from Kurt‟s social security once she reaches age
sixty-five.
The district court ordered Kurt to pay traditional alimony to Jacqueline of
$8500 per month until October 1, 2014, the month of Jacqueline‟s fifty-eighth
birthday, to allow her to pursue her education. Beginning October 1, 2014, the
district court ordered Kurt to pay $5000 per month until his retirement. After his
retirement, the district court ordered Kurt to pay the difference between $5000
and Jacqueline‟s income from Kurt‟s pensions and social security. If income
from these three sources is greater than $5000 per month, Kurt will not be
required to pay additional alimony.
Kurt appeals, arguing the district court‟s
alimony award was inequitable. Jacqueline cross-appeals, seeking an award of
appellate attorney fees.
II. Standard of Review
We review equity cases de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We examine the
entire record and adjudicate rights anew on the issues presented. In re Marriage
2
Though Kurt argues on appeal that Jacqueline would receive $2334.51 per month from
the KONE pension and the district court found that Jacqueline would receive $3653.28
per month from the KONE pension, the record establishes that Jacqueline is only
projected to receive $1826.64 from the KONE pension.
5
of Smith, 573 N.W.2d 924, 926 (Iowa 1998). We give weight to the district
court‟s findings of fact, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses,
but are not bound by them. In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 539 (Iowa
2005). Because each decision in a dissolution action is dependent on the unique
facts of the case, we “accord the trial court considerable latitude in resolving
disputed claims and will disturb a ruling „only when there has been a failure to do
equity.‟” Smith, 573 N.W.2d at 926.
III. Alimony Award
Kurt argues that the amount and duration of the alimony award are
inequitable. Alimony is not an absolute right. Anliker, 694 N.W.2d at 540. The
district court may grant alimony at its discretion after considering the particular
facts of the case and the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21A (2007). In
re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 704 (Iowa 2007).
These factors
include: (1) the length of the marriage; (2) the age and physical and emotional
health of the parties; (3) the property distribution; (4) the educational level of
each party at the time of the marriage and at the time the action is commenced;
(5) the earning capacity of the party seeking alimony; (6) the feasibility of the
party seeking maintenance becoming self-supporting at a standard of living
reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, and the length of
time necessary to achieve this goal; and (7) tax consequences to each party.
Iowa Code § 598.21A.
There are three different types of alimony: traditional, rehabilitative, and
reimbursement. In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179, 184 (Iowa 2004).
The district court found that Jacqueline was entitled to traditional alimony.
6
Traditional alimony is “payable for life or so long as a spouse is incapable of selfsupport.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Its purpose is to provide Jacqueline
with support comparable to what she would have received if the marriage had
continued. In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct. App.
1997). Jacqueline is entitled to be supported “in a manner as closely resembling
the standards existing during the marriage as possible, to the extent that that is
possible without destroying [Kurt‟s right] to enjoy at least a comparable standard
of living as well.” In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa Ct. App.
1983). Rehabilitative alimony is “a way of supporting an economically dependent
spouse through a limited period of re-education or retraining following divorce,
thereby creating incentive and opportunity for that spouse to become selfsupporting.”
Probasco, 676 N.W.2d at 184 (internal quotations omitted).
Inherited property and marital assets can be considered in making an alimony
award. In re Marriage of Voss, 396 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986).
Although Jacqueline was awarded a considerable amount of marital and
inherited assets, her ability to maintain her predissolution standard of living is
limited by her lower earning capacity. However, the district court‟s order requires
Kurt to pay alimony in excess of Jacqueline‟s monthly expenses, allowing her to
profit from each month‟s alimony payment, even considering the tax
consequences assumed by the district court.
Once Jacqueline‟s standard of
living is assured, there is no reason for Kurt to provide further alimony, even if he
is financially capable. Id. (“[O]nce the dependent spouse‟s standard of living is
assured, there is no reason, in equity, for the supporting spouse to provide still
more.”).
Accordingly, we find equity requires that we reduce Kurt‟s monthly
7
alimony payment to $7500 until October 1, 2014. This will cover Jacqueline‟s
expenses, including taxes, and allow her to maintain her predissolution standard
of living. This award will give Jacqueline the time and income necessary to
pursue her education and become integrated in the job market.
Beginning October 1, 2014, Kurt shall pay alimony to Jacqueline in the
amount of the difference between $5000 and Jacqueline‟s income from Kurt‟s
pensions and social security.
Jacqueline‟s income from alimony, pensions,
social security, and work should allow her to maintain a standard of living
comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. Considering the length of the
parties‟ marriage, the parties‟ ages, the parties‟ levels of education, Jacqueline‟s
lower earning capacity, and Jacqueline‟s ability to become self-supporting at a
standard of living comparable to the one enjoyed during the marriage, we
conclude this award of alimony is equitable.
Even if this award results in
Jacqueline receiving a combination of rehabilitative and traditional alimony, as
Kurt argues, we find that the award is equitable. See In re Marriage of Becker,
756 N.W.2d 822, 827 (Iowa 2008) (stating the court may award a combination of
different types of alimony). All alimony payments will end upon Kurt‟s death,
Jacqueline‟s remarriage, or Jacqueline‟s death.
IV. Appellate Attorney Fees
Jacqueline argues Kurt should pay her appellate attorney fees. An award
of attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court‟s sound
discretion. In re Marriage of Wood, 567 N.W.2d 680, 684 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
The court considers the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the
other party to pay, and whether the party making the request is obligated to
8
defend the trial court‟s decision on appeal. In re Marriage of Gaer, 476 N.W.2d
324, 330 (Iowa 1991). We find that each party can and should pay his or her
own appellate attorney fees. Costs are assessed to Kurt.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
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.
