IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1926
Filed November 12, 2015
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DARCY J. WERNER
AND TRENT WERNER
Upon the Petition of
DARCY J. WERNER,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
TRENT WERNER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland,
Judge.
An ex-husband appeals the physical care and property distribution
provisions of the dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Steven E. Howes and Kevin C. Rigdon of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant.
Mona F. Knoll of Nazette, Marner, Nathanson & Shea, L.L.P., Cedar
Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
Darcy Werner and Trent Werner were married in 2005 and had a child in
2007. The parties lived in Cedar Rapids until 2012 when they moved about thirty
miles away, to Solon. This move was intended to shorten Trent’s drive to his
new employment in Rock Island, Illinois, though his drive still consisted of an
hour each way. In June 2013, Darcy filed a petition to dissolve their marriage. At
about that time, the parties separated, and Darcy moved from Solon back to
Cedar Rapids to be closer to her work location. After a hearing on temporary
matters, the court granted the parties temporary joint legal custody and granted
Darcy temporary physical care of the child. After a two-day trial, the court
entered a decree dissolving the marriage. Trent appeals the court’s decision to
place physical care of the child with Darcy and the award of an equalization
payment by him to Darcy.
As to physical care, Trent requests we order shared care or place physical
care of the child with him. He contends the court should order that the child
attend school in Solon, where the parties had been living together. He also
asserts Darcy should not benefit from her unilateral decision to move back to
Cedar Rapids, creating a distance between the parties that the district court cited
as a reason joint physical care was not workable. Finally, he claims the record
does not support the court’s characterization that he is likely to move to the Quad
Cities. As to the equalization payment, his brief point asserts that Darcy should
be the one to make an equalization payment to him, but the content of his brief
3
simply requests that we negate any equalization payment he is required to make
to Darcy.
Upon our de novo review of the record along with a careful study of the
briefs and the district court’s ruling, we conclude the findings of fact and
credibility determinations in the district court’s twenty-page single-spaced ruling
thoroughly and correctly address each issue raised by Trent. Giving deference
to the credibility findings and having determined the district court correctly
applied the governing legal and equitable principles, we approve the reasons and
conclusions of the opinion; a full opinion of this court would not augment or clarify
existing case law. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e).
AFFIRMED.