IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0314
Filed August 27, 2014
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEANA L. BENSON
AND ROBERT T.D. BENSON
Upon the Petition of
JEANA L. BENSON,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
ROBERT T.D. BENSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Thomas J. Bice,
Judge.
Robert Benson appeals the district court’s dissolution decree. AFFIRMED
AS MODIFIED.
William H. Habhab, Ford Dodge, for appellant.
Kurt T. Pittner, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Robert Benson appeals the spousal support provision of a dissolution
decree. He contends the district court acted inequitably in declining to grant him
spousal support.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Robert and Jeana Benson married in 1983 and divorced in 2014. When
the parties decided to have children, they agreed Robert would serve as primary
caretaker. Robert assumed and continued that role throughout the children’s
lives. The children were sixteen and twelve at the time of trial.
In addition to serving as primary caretaker, Robert earned part-time wages
as a stocker at a craft store, a job he held for fourteen years. At the time of trial
he worked twenty-three hours per week and made $10.75 per hour. The parties’
2012 tax return reflected gross wages of $7032.
Jeana worked for twenty years as a registered nurse. She earned a base
hourly rate of $33.71, which could fluctuate by approximately two and a half
dollars per hour depending on the nature of her job duties. She worked close to
full-time hours with some overtime and the 2012 tax return reflected gross wages
of $64,806.
At trial, Robert sought traditional spousal support of $1000 per month until
Jeana’s child support obligation ended and $1500 thereafter. The district court
found that “alimony is not appropriate here.” The court reasoned that Robert had
“the ability to support himself notwithstanding his satisfaction of working only
part-time.” The court also noted that, given Jeana’s financial obligations, she did
3
not have the resources to pay “lifetime alimony as [Robert] requests.” Robert
appealed.
II. Spousal Support
Iowa Code section 598.21A (2013) sets forth a list of facts for
consideration in deciding whether to award spousal support, including the length
of the marriage, the parties’ ages, educational levels, health, and earning
capacities, the property distribution, and the ability of the party seeking support to
become self-supporting at a comparable standard of living. Iowa Code
§ 598.21A(1).
The parties were married for thirty years. Robert was fifty-nine years old,
had no post-high school education, and had a work history that was limited to
hard physical labor, which caused him to develop chronic knee and back pain.
For sixteen years preceding trial, his first priority was caring for the children. He
was the parent primarily responsible for attending to the children’s needs when
they were infants and toddlers. After they began school, he was the parent who
primarily transported them, made their lunches, and took them to medical
appointments. While he also earned wages, he adjusted his work schedule to
accommodate Jeana’s schedule in an effort to ensure that the children were
always in the care of one of the parents.
Jeana was forty-nine years old at the time of trial and in good health. She
obtained a nursing degree during the marriage and advanced in her career,
becoming a full-time charge nurse at one point. While she asserted that her
employer cut back her hours, her earnings nonetheless far outstripped Robert’s,
as did her earning capacity.
4
Jeana owned a 401(k) retirement account containing $69,261, all
accumulated during the marriage. Despite the length of the marriage, she was
only ordered to give Robert about $9500 from that account. While she noted that
Robert received the family home valued at between $85,000 and $95,000, he
paid off the $63,000 mortgage on the home with his own inherited funds of
$106,000. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (“The court shall divide all property,
except inherited property or gifts received or expected by one party”). Had the
parties elected to sell the home, Jeana would have received an equity payment
of approximately $15,500, a sum that was far less than the almost $35,000 she
would have been required to pay Robert had the court divided her retirement
account equally.
There is no question Jeana was saddled with a heavier debt load than
Robert, having amassed $18,577 in outstanding credit card balances, relative to
Robert’s balance of $1605.29. While some of this debt was incurred for family
expenses during the marriage, Jeana acknowledged Robert gave her $5000 from
the inheritance to pay outstanding bills and used his earnings to buy groceries.
On our de novo review, we conclude this is a paradigmatic case for an
award of spousal support. See In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 742
(Iowa 1993) (stating alimony may be used to remedy inequities in a marriage and
compensate a spouse who leaves the marriage at a financial disadvantage). Our
decision is based on the length of the marriage, the parents’ decision to have
Robert forego full-time wages so he could serve as the children’s primary
caretaker, the significant earnings disparity, and the unequal distribution of the
retirement account. See id. (“Following a marriage of long duration, we have
5
affirmed awards of both alimony and substantially equal property distribution,
especially where the disparity in earning capacity has been great.”).
As noted, Robert seeks traditional alimony, which is generally payable for
life, or at least for as long as the receiving spouse is incapable of self-support.
See In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 540 (Iowa 2005). “The purpose
of a traditional or permanent alimony award is to provide the receiving spouse
with support comparable to what he or she would receive if the marriage
continued.” In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct. App.
1997). Robert’s age, limited earnings history as a manual laborer, and his
chronic health conditions lead us to conclude Robert is incapable of self-support.
We believe an award of traditional alimony is appropriate.
Jeana paid Robert $350 per month in temporary support. Although the
court characterized this payment as “rehabilitative,” we view the amount as a
reasonable traditional alimony payment that balances Robert’s needs with
Jeana’s ability to pay. Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d at 922. We conclude Jeana should
pay Robert $350 per month in traditional alimony until Robert remarries or either
party dies. See In re Marriage of Brown, 487 N.W.2d 331, 334-35 (Iowa 1992).
A. Whether Robert is entitled to attorney fees on appeal
Robert seeks $1000 in appellate attorney fees and an order requiring
Jeana to pay the costs of this appeal. Given the fact that Robert prevailed and
earns significantly less than Jeana, we grant both requests. See In re Marriage
of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260, 270 (Iowa 2005). Jeana is ordered to pay $1000
toward Robert’s appellate attorney fees as well as the costs of this appeal.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.