IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PATRICIA K. RUBENDALL AND LONNIE L. RUBENDALL Upon the Petition of PATRICIA K. RUBENDALL, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning LONNIE L. RUBENDALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-441 / 08-1515
Filed July 22, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PATRICIA K. RUBENDALL
AND LONNIE L. RUBENDALL
Upon the Petition of
PATRICIA K. RUBENDALL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
LONNIE L. RUBENDALL,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, Kurt L. Wilke, Judge.
Patricia Rubendall appeals from the economic provisions of the decree
dissolving her marriage to Lonnie Rubendall. AFFIRMED.
James R. Van Dyke of Van Dyke & Werden, P.L.C., Carroll, for appellant.
Julie A. Schumacher of Mundt, Franck & Schumacher, Denison, for
appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Patricia and Lonnie Rubendall married in 1971 and divorced in 2008. The
district court awarded each party approximately half of their $369,188 in assets.
The court awarded Patricia spousal support of $700 per month, to continue until
Patricia dies or remarries.
On appeal, Patricia seeks an increase in the amount of spousal support to
$1000 per month and seeks to have Lonnie pay her medical insurance premiums
of $273 per month.
Several factors are relevant to determining spousal support, including the
length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the distribution of
property, the earning capacity of the party seeking support, and the ability of the
party seeking support to become self-supporting at a standard comparable to the
standard enjoyed during the marriage. Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(a)-(c), (e), (f)
(2007).
The marriage lasted thirty-seven years. Both parties were fifty-nine years
old at the time of trial and both had non-debilitating health issues. The property
distribution included an equal division of the profit from the sale of one of the
parties’ homes, valued at $150,000. Patricia was also awarded (1) over $18,000
from a savings plan, (2) one-half the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ ranch if
sold or $12,500 if kept by Lonnie, (3) one-half the proceeds from the sale of farm
machinery valued at $40,000 or more, and (4) an unencumbered residence. As
for the parties’ earning capacities, both had about a thirty-year work history.
While Patricia’s average salary over a four-year period was only $10,277 relative
to Lonnie’s average salary of $46,162, Lonnie’s income was slated to decrease
3
as early as March 2009 on his retirement. Specifically, he had the option of
receiving 56.25% of his highest three-year earning average in March 2009, or
delaying retirement and receiving an additional two percent per year thereafter.
At the time of trial, Lonnie was mulling over his options.
On our de novo review, we conclude the length of the marriage and the
difference in earning capacity support the district court’s award of spousal
support.
As for the amount, the court recognized that Patricia’s expenses
exceeded her income, but noted that she received “a fair amount of assets” in the
property distribution. There is also evidence that Patricia would receive more
than Lonnie in social security benefits. Based on these factors, we conclude the
district court’s award of $700 per month was equitable. We further conclude that
this award, together with the remaining assets Patricia received, were sufficient
to cover her payments for health insurance premiums.
Lonnie requests appellate attorney fees. Given his higher earnings, we
decline his request.
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.
