IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELVIN E. MCREYNOLDS AND SHIRLEY A. MCREYNOLDS Upon the Petition of MELVIN E. MCREYNOLDS, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning SHIRLEY A. MCREYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-755 / 09-0070
Filed November 25, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELVIN E. MCREYNOLDS
AND SHIRLEY A. MCREYNOLDS
Upon the Petition of
MELVIN E. MCREYNOLDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
SHIRLEY A. MCREYNOLDS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Dale B. Hagen,
Judge.
A husband appeals the property division and support payment provisions
of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Andrew Howie of Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, P.C., West Des Moines,
for appellant.
Robert Stuyvesant of Stuyvesant & Benton, Carlisle, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Melvin and Shirley McReynolds married in 1997. Two days prior to their
wedding, they entered into a premarital agreement which authorized each of
them to ―have, keep and retain‖ property that each owned or acquired.
Eleven years later, Melvin petitioned to dissolve the marriage. Following
trial, the district court declared the premarital agreement null and void. The court
awarded Melvin the home he brought into the marriage, but ordered him to pay
Shirley $7500 for ―[t]he reasonable value of her equity in the home.‖ The court
also awarded each party the checking and savings accounts in their names and
equally divided an investment account and a certificate of deposit. Finally, the
court ordered Melvin to pay Shirley $500 per month in spousal support until
either party died or until Shirley’s remarriage.
On appeal, Melvin challenges the property and spousal support provisions
of the decree.
I.
Property
Melvin (A) takes issue with the $7500 payment to Shirley for her interest in
the home, (B) claims the district court wrongly distributed money that he inherited
from his brother-in-law, and (C) points to a scrivener’s error in the court’s award
of certain personal property.
A. Home
Melvin asserts that the district court should have enforced the premarital
agreement and awarded him the home he brought into the marriage without
requiring an equity payment to Shirley. Our review of this issue is de novo. In re
Marriage of Shanks, 758 N.W.2d 506, 511 (Iowa 2008).
3
In declining to enforce the premarital agreement, the district court cited (1)
the absence of an attached statement of the parties’ assets and (2) the
unenforceability of a provision waiving spousal support.
With respect to the statement of assets, there is no question that Shirley
was entitled to ―a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial
obligations of the other spouse.‖ Iowa Code § 596.8(3) (2007); see Shanks, 758
N.W.2d at 519. Although no itemized statement of Melvin’s assets was attached
to the premarital agreement, the agreement referred to the house and indicated it
was owned by Melvin. The agreement also provided for Shirley’s use of the
home should Melvin pre-decease Shirley. Notably, Shirley’s attorney reviewed
the document and changed ―a couple items‖ before she signed it. See Shanks,
758 N.W.2d at 513, 518 (noting spouse encouraged other spouse to seek legal
counsel). Additionally, Shirley testified that her attorney explained the provision
relating to the home. Finally, while Shirley characterized the agreement as a
―hurry-hurry deal,‖ she did not assert that she executed the agreement
involuntarily or that the agreement was unconscionable.
See id. at 512–19.
Given the language of the premarital agreement and Shirley’s testimony, we
conclude Shirley was ―sufficiently knowledgeable about [the husband’s] financial
circumstances to satisfy the [statute].‖ Id. at 519. Therefore, under the provision
of the premarital agreement relating to property brought into the marriage, Melvin
4
was entitled to his house and was not required to make an equity payment to
Shirley.1
We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that the provision of the
prenuptial agreement waiving spousal support was unenforceable.
See Iowa
Code § 596.5 (―The right of a spouse or child to support shall not be adversely
affected by a premarital agreement.‖). As Melvin points out, that provision could
be severed from the balance of the agreement. See id. § 596.8 (―If a provision of
the agreement or the application of the provision to a party is found by the court
to be unenforceable, the provision shall be severed from the remainder of the
agreement and shall not affect the provisions, or application, of the agreement
which can be given effect without the unenforceable provision.‖).
B. Inherited Property
Shirley’s sister’s husband devised his entire estate to Melvin.
Melvin
transferred the cash in the estate to a joint account that he opened for these
funds. He stated that Shirley was named on the account so that ―if something
was to happen to me that was her money.‖ Melvin paid two years of income
taxes from the account, with seventy percent of those taxes based on Shirley’s
indebtedness. In commenting on the balance, he stated, ―[O]ur intent was when
we talked about this was that someday—we always talked about going on a
Canada cruise and I thought that money could be used on that.‖
When
Shirley
learned
of
Melvin’s
divorce
plans,
she
withdrew
approximately $12,000 from the joint account and placed it into her personal
1
Alternately, we conclude that Shirley was not entitled to a $7500 payment even if the
prenuptial agreement were deemed unenforceable, as Shirley provided no receipts to
document her claimed expenditure of $7500 in home improvements.
5
checking account. She spent a portion of the money on expenses for her pickup. At the time of trial, $4449.95 of these funds remained in her account. The
district court awarded this sum to her, without addressing its source or Shirley’s
depletion of close to $8000.
On appeal, Melvin takes issue with this disposition. He contends $12,000
should have been set aside to him. Our review of this issue is de novo. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.907 (2009).
Inherited property is excluded from the property subject to division and is
usually awarded to the spouse who inherited it unless equity demands otherwise.
In re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 2005); In re Marriage of
Liebich, 547 N.W.2d 844, 850 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). We believe equity demands
otherwise.
From the beginning, Melvin treated the inherited funds as if they belonged
to both spouses. Although he did not spend the money on daily expenses, he
paid Shirley’s taxes with it and set aside the balance for a joint vacation. Given
his intent to use the funds for Shirley as well as himself, we conclude the district
court acted equitably in declining to set aside those funds to Melvin.
C. Personal Items.
Both parties agree that the decree erroneously awarded Shirley the ―nonstarred‖ personal items listed in Respondent’s Exhibit D rather than the ―starred‖
items. We modify the decree to reflect the parties’ intent.
II.
Spousal Support
Melvin next challenges the district court’s award of $500 per month in
spousal support. Although our review of the award is de novo, the district court is
6
given considerable latitude in making this determination.
In re Marriage of
Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 540 (Iowa 2005). ―We will disturb that determination
only when there has been a failure to do equity.‖ Id.
We find the award equitable. Shirley was sixty-nine years old at the time
of trial and earned $7.50 per hour in wages for a thirty-seven hour work week.
Her only other sources of income were $958.90 per month in social security
benefits and $119.42 per month in pension funds. She had a history of back
problems that required three surgeries during the eleven-year marriage, and she
was diagnosed with osteoporosis.
She testified that, although she received
Medicare benefits, she would require a supplemental health insurance policy that
would cost $125 per month.
She also testified she would have to pay an
additional $69 per month for medications.
Melvin was financially capable of providing spousal support in the amount
ordered by the court, as he earned $36,000 to $37,000 per year, received $1500
in monthly social security benefits, and owned a home free and clear. For these
reasons, we affirm the spousal support award.
III.
Disposition
We affirm the spousal support award. We affirm the property distribution
provisions of the decree except (1) the provision requiring Melvin to pay Shirley
$7500 as compensation for the home and (2) the provision relating to division of
personal items. We modify the decree to delete the $7500 payment and to
provide that the starred personal items will be awarded to Shirley and the nonstarred items shall be awarded to Melvin.
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.
