IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSEPH L. BLAKE AND BARBARA A. BLAKE Upon the Petition of JOSEPH L. BLAKE, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning BARBARA A. BLAKE, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-680 / 11-1915 Filed September 19, 2012 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSEPH L. BLAKE AND BARBARA A. BLAKE Upon the Petition of JOSEPH L. BLAKE, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning BARBARA A. BLAKE, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, David L. Christensen, Judge. Barbara Blake appeals from the property distribution and summer visitation provisions of the parties dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Barbara A. Blake, Indianola, appellant pro se. Louis M. Fusco, Indianola, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ. 2 POTTERFIELD, J. We find no reason to recount extensive facts in this case. The parties were married in September 1998 and had two children: a daughter born in 2001, and a son born in 2005. The parties separated in November 2010. The dissolution trial was held on August 12, 2011. Barbara Blake appeals from the property distribution and summer visitation provisions of the parties dissolution decree. She contends the court erred in awarding Joseph Blake1 fifty percent of her IPERS pension that accrued during the marriage. She also contends the court erred in awarding Joseph more visitation than he requested and that the visitation awarded is not in the children s best interests. Finally, she contends the trial court should have allowed her to reopen the record to present additional evidence. Our review of this equitable proceeding is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. The court ordered that each party will keep their retirement accounts and the party s respective IPERS pensions would be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders based upon the portion accrued during the marriage, and that amount will be separated pursuant to the formula described by In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996). This division is the preferred method of dividing such pension plans and we find no failure to do equity. See In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Iowa 2006) (noting pensions are divisible marital property; and IPERS is a defined-benefit plan generally to be divided by using the percentage method identified in Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 25557). 1 Joseph has not filed a brief in this court. 3 As for Barbara s complaint that the decree awards Joseph more summer vacation than he requested2 and is unworkable, we note that the decree provides: During summer break when the children are not in school, the parties will alternate weeks with the children with Joe receiving the first week, Barb the second, and so on. The regular parenting schedule will resume once school begins. Barbara contends that, as written, because the children attend year-round school and Joseph teaches at a school which is not year-round, the first week of summer visitation will occur while he is still teaching. She also contends that their daughter soon will go to a school that is not year-round while their son will continue to be in a year-round school, which will result in visitation where the children will be separated. Because there might be some ambiguity in the court s summer visitation award, we modify to clarify that summer break begins at that point when Joseph and both children are on summer recess. In all other respects, we affirm.3 Costs on appeal are taxed to Barbara. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 2 Joseph requested four weeks of visitation during the summer, in alternating weeks. Barbara testified that with a year-round-school schedule, summer vacation is six to seven weeks long. 3 We do not address matters asserted that are not part of the record, and find no abuse of the court s discretion in refusing to reopen the record after trial was completed. See Sun Valley Iowa Lake Ass n v. Anderson, 551 N.W.2d 621, 635 (Iowa 1996) (reviewing a district court s decision to reopen the record and consider additional testimony for an abuse of discretion); In re J.R.H., 358 N.W.2d 311, 318 (Iowa 1984) ( [T]he court has broad discretion to reopen the evidence. ).
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.
