In re Marriage of Stewart case brief
356 N.W.2d 611
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
356 N.W.2d 611
CASE SYNOPSIS: Respondent
wife appealed the Iowa District Court for Marshall County's decree in
petitioner husband's action for marriage dissolution. She contended
that the property division was inequitable and that she should have
been awarded alimony and the family dog.
FACTS: In a dissolution case, the trial judge set aside to the husband stock that was gifted to him before and during marriage, and then divided the balance of the marital property, which resulted in a nearly equal division. The wife contended that the division was unfair and that she should have been awarded alimony and the dog. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's division, refusal to award alimony, and decision to award the dog to the husband. The court reasoned that the wife was not entitled to a greater share of the property or alimony because of her contributions to the husband's education. His expenses were paid by his parents and his own income. After his graduation his income exceeded the wife's. Further, although his degree, which enhanced his earning capacity, was a factor to consider, the wife also had a degree and obtained work as remunerative as the husband's. The court did not consider the gifted property because it generated little income and there was no proof that it enhanced the parties' life style. The court also considered the parties' almost equal earning records. There was no reason to disturb the trial court's decision awarding the dog to the husband.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the trial court's property division, refusal to award alimony, and decision to award the dog to the husband in the husband's action for dissolution of the parties' marriage.
FACTS: In a dissolution case, the trial judge set aside to the husband stock that was gifted to him before and during marriage, and then divided the balance of the marital property, which resulted in a nearly equal division. The wife contended that the division was unfair and that she should have been awarded alimony and the dog. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's division, refusal to award alimony, and decision to award the dog to the husband. The court reasoned that the wife was not entitled to a greater share of the property or alimony because of her contributions to the husband's education. His expenses were paid by his parents and his own income. After his graduation his income exceeded the wife's. Further, although his degree, which enhanced his earning capacity, was a factor to consider, the wife also had a degree and obtained work as remunerative as the husband's. The court did not consider the gifted property because it generated little income and there was no proof that it enhanced the parties' life style. The court also considered the parties' almost equal earning records. There was no reason to disturb the trial court's decision awarding the dog to the husband.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the trial court's property division, refusal to award alimony, and decision to award the dog to the husband in the husband's action for dissolution of the parties' marriage.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment