IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TRACY ALAN HOWELL AND LISA ANN HOWELL Upon the Petition of TRACY ALAN HOWELL, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning LISA ANN HOWELL, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-602 / 09-0084
Filed September 2, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TRACY ALAN HOWELL
AND LISA ANN HOWELL
Upon the Petition of
TRACY ALAN HOWELL,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
LISA ANN HOWELL,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, James Q.
Blomgren, Judge.
The respondent appeals the property settlement and spousal support
provisions of the decree dissolving the parties’ marriage.
AFFIRMED AS
MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Bryan J. Goldsmith of Webber, Gaumer & Emanuel, P.C., Ottumwa, for
appellant.
Allan C. Orsborn of Orsborn, Milani & Mitchell, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for
appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Schechtman, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Lisa Ann Howell appeals the property settlement and spousal support
provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Tracy Alan Howell. We affirm
as modified and remand.
I. Facts and Procedural Background.
Lisa and Tracy were married in 1997. They had two children, a son born
in 1997 and a daughter born in 2000. At the time the decree was entered, Tracy
was thirty-nine years old and Lisa was thirty-five years old. Neither party has any
physical or mental limitations. Both are high school graduates.
Tracy has worked at the Cargill plant in Eddyville for the past twenty
years, and is currently a general foreman employed by Weitz making $29.75 per
hour. His annual base pay for a forty-hour work week is $61,880; however,
Tracy’s 2007 W-2 earnings included overtime pay and bonuses, and totaled
$87,454. Although overtime and bonuses are not guaranteed, Tracy has earned
them for the past few years. He is a journeyman millwright and a member of
Millwright Local Union 2158.
When Lisa and Tracy were married, they had both been working at Cargill
and their incomes were quite comparable. Tracy, for example, made $38,426 in
1996 and Lisa made $36,910.
However, while Tracy continued in his
employment, Lisa quit her job to be a stay-at-home mom when the first child was
born.
Also, Lisa maintained the household generally during Tracy’s frequent
work-related travels.
In 2005, Lisa reentered the workforce. Lisa is currently employed as a
registered pharmacy technician at Hy-Vee in Centerville.
She works
3
approximately thirty-four to thirty-five hours per week and makes thirteen dollars
per hour. Lisa earned $19,693.70 in gross wages for 2007.
In July 2007, Tracy petitioned for dissolution of the marriage.
The
dissolution trial took place on June 25 and 26, 2008. The parties stipulated they
should have joint legal custody and Lisa should have physical care of the
children. On September 2, 2008, the district court filed a written ruling dividing
the assets and liabilities of the parties, and ordering Tracy to pay Lisa $1244 per
month for child support.
For purposes of calculating Tracy’s child support
obligation, the court imputed his income at $87,454, and Lisa’s income at
$23,868. The district court’s ruling did not mention spousal support, although
Lisa had requested it.
Thereafter, Lisa filed a motion to enlarge and amend the district court’s
decree. Among other things, Lisa argued the court erred in (1) failing to award
her spousal support; (2) valuing Tracy’s Carpenters Pension Fund at $3274.55
and awarding it solely to Tracy; and (3) determining several credit card payments
for attorney fees made by Tracy totaling $11,623.00 were joint marital debts and
including them in the parties’ divided property. After a hearing on the motion, the
court entered an order upholding its previous ruling in the decree with regard to
those issues.
Lisa now appeals, rearguing several of the issues she raised in her motion
to enlarge and amend. She contends the district court should have awarded her
$800 per month in spousal support or some other appropriate amount. Lisa
further argues the district court erred in its property settlement, specifically with
4
regard to its valuation and distribution of Tracy’s Carpenters Pension Fund, and
its classification of Tracy’s credit card payments as marital debt.
II. Analysis.
We review dissolution decrees de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009); In
re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 2007). We give weight to the
factfindings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of
witnesses, but are not bound by them.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re
Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006).
A. Spousal Support.
Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends upon the
circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d
535, 540 (Iowa 2005). In determining whether to award alimony, the district court
is to consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.21A(1) (2007). That section
allows the court to consider, among other things, (1) the earning capacity of each
party and (2) the present standards of living and ability to pay balanced against
the relative needs of the other. In re Marriage of Miller, 524 N.W.2d 442, 445
(Iowa Ct. App. 1994). The court may also consider the amount of child support
ordered under the decree when determining if spousal support is to be awarded
and, if so, the appropriate amount of the award. In re Marriage of Will, 489
N.W.2d 394, 400 (Iowa 1992). We only disturb the district court’s decision if
there is a failure to do equity. Anliker, 694 N.W.2d at 540.
In our de novo review, we believe an award of spousal support is
necessary to do equity in this case. Lisa and Tracy’s marriage lasted eleven
years. During the parties’ marriage, Lisa’s career and earning capacity were put
5
on hold while she took on a caregiver and housekeeper role for the family and
Tracy acted as the main breadwinner.
Lisa’s staying at home benefited the
family and enabled Tracy to steadily increase his income.
Although Lisa
reentered the workforce in 2005, she has continued to earn significantly less than
she did prior to the parties’ marriage. The district court imputed Lisa’s income at
$23,868 for purposes of calculating Tracy’s child support obligation. In contrast,
Tracy now earns close to $90,000 including overtime and bonuses.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe this case falls within the category of
cases where an award of spousal maintenance is needed to achieve equity. A
number of the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21A support such an
award, including the length of the marriage, Lisa’s relative earning capacity, her
length of absence from the job market, her responsibilities for the children, and
the feasibility of her becoming self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably
comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. Simply stated, when Lisa and
Tracy married each other, they were at the same income level; now, due to the
marriage and their children, Lisa earns about one-fourth of what Tracy earns.
Thus, this is the kind of case where alimony is appropriate. However, we do not
feel it is necessary to award alimony until the youngest child turns eighteen, as
requested by Lisa. The record shows that Tracy has good job skills and wants to
go to school to become a pharmacist. Upon our review, we grant Lisa alimony in
the amount of $800 per month for seventy-two months.
B. Pension Fund.
Lisa’s second argument on appeal relates to the court’s division of
property. Lisa had asked the court to divide Tracy’s pension between the parties
6
equally pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. However, the district
court simply put Tracy’s pension on his side of the ledger as part of the overall
property division.
Lisa contends that in doing so, the court incorrectly
undervalued Tracy’s Carpenters Pension Fund at $3274.55 total. She alleges
that $3274.55 is not a present value calculation, but rather, Tracy’s projected
monthly benefit upon retirement.
Upon our review of this matter, we find the pension documents are
confusing (to say the least). Like Lisa, we have our doubts that the present value
of Tracy’s entire pension is only $3274.55. However, based on the testimony
and exhibits, we cannot say that the record supports a different figure. No one
attempted during the trial to establish that the present value was anything other
than $3274.55. In fact, Lisa testified as follows:
Q. And on your Exhibit CC, you show Tracy’s vested
amount as being $3274; is that correct? A. That was as of 2006.
Thus, like the district court, we believe that $3274.55 is the number that has the
most support in this record. We cannot take new evidence or retry this case on
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on this point.
C. Tracy’s Attorney Fees.
Lisa also argues the court erred when it determined several credit card
payments for attorney fees made by Tracy totaling $11,623 were joint marital
debts and included them in the parties’ divided property. We find this argument
to be without merit. The record shows that both parties utilized joint assets to
pay attorney fees for these proceedings. Lisa used cash and Tracy used credit
7
cards. The district court’s decision with regard to this issue is just and equitable
and we affirm.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court on
the property settlement issues, while granting Lisa alimony in the amount of $800
per month for seventy-two months. We remand for recalculation of child support
in accordance with the applicable guidelines. Costs of appeal shall be divided
evenly between the parties.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
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.
