Family Law Case Summaries
Trusted Family Law Attorneys
Serving Clients in South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska
At the Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., we have extensive experience handling a wide range of family law and divorce issues for our clients. Based in Sioux City, Iowa, our firm serves clients throughout Iowa, as well as in the neighboring states of South Dakota and Nebraska.
We believe providing information and resources to our clients is of the utmost importance. Some case summaries we have here on our website are organized into the categories below:
- Former significant other liable for damages for illegally recording their partner’s telephone conversations.
- Awarding husband substantially more assets was equitable when he brought significantly more assets into the union and the marriage of short duration.
- Award of Spousal Support was inappropriate when husband's expenses were calculated incorrectly.
- Retroactive child support is limited to three months after the date the opposing party received notice.
- Statutory educational support obligation only continues until age 22.
- Children's issues
- Property issues
- Iowa Court decisions
- Nebraska Court decisions
- South Dakota Court decisions
Contact an experienced family law lawyer at the Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., today to discuss your case and needs. Call 800-613-7989 ext. 242.
Former significant other liable for damages for illegally recording their partner’s telephone conversations. The parties had been living together with their two children, although they were preparing to separate. Jones set up a recording system, so that he could record Papillon’s conversations when he wasn’t home. Eventually, Jones started playing the recordings loudly at night, and informed Papillon that he intended to share the contents of the recordings, either in court or online. Papillon brought suit under Iowa Code § 808B, which prohibits the willful interception "a wire, oral, or electronic communication." The Court awarded Papillon actual damages of $2,076.55, which were the hotel expenses that she incurred after moving out of their home. However, the Court reversed the award of punitive damages, finding that the court had failed to establish that Jones was actually aware of the requirements of Iowa Code § 808B and "willfully, maliciously, or recklessly violated those statutory requirements." See Papillon v. Jones, No. 15-1813 (Iowa Ct. App., Oct. 26, 2016).
Awarding husband substantially more assets was equitable when he brought significantly more assets into the union and the marriage of short duration. The couple was married for 7 years. The husband's premarital net worth was $683,364, which was mostly rental property and the wife's premarital net worth was $98,916. During the course of the marriage the couple comingled funds and the rental properties were operated for a net loss. The trial court's division of assets resulted in the husband leaving the marriage with a net worth of $777,081 and the wife with $217,358. She appealed on the basis that the property division claiming that she should have been awarded a share of the value of the rental properties or in the alternative, a portion of the increase in the value of the rental properties that occurred during the marriage. The court examined the division based on the relevant factors including the length of the marriage, contributions of each party to the marriage, the age and health of the parties, each party's earning capacity, and the property each party brought to the marriage. The court found that the properties had only minimally increased in value during the marriage and that the husband brought more assets into the marriage which supported him receiving more in the division of property. In re Marriage of Peiffer, 2013 WL 5498153 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
Award of Spousal Support was inappropriate when husband's expenses were calculated incorrectly. The trial court ordered the husband to pay $1000 per month for 120 months. The husband and wife appealed. The husband claimed that the amount should be reduced to $250 per month because it is unequitable and the wife appealed claiming it should be $2400 per month and lack for her entire lifetime. The court of appeals considered the factors involved in spousal support which are: (1) the length of the marriage, (2) the age, physical, and emotional health of the parties, (3) the property division, (4) the educational level of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time the dissolution action is commenced, (5) the earning capacity of the party seeking support, and (6) the feasibility of the party seeking support becoming self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. The court found that the husband's expenses were incorrectly calculated at $1178 when they were actually $2925. However, the husband also claimed higher expenses than the wife for food and included expenses for eating out. As a result the court ordered that the husband pay the wife spousal support in the amount of $450 per month for 120 months. In re Marriage of Burke, 2013 WL 5962933 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
Retroactive child support is limited to three months after the date the opposing party received notice. The children were both living with their father and no child support was ordered. The older child moved out and the younger child committed a delinquent act. As part of the juvenile court's adjudication of that delinquent act the younger child was to live with the mother. The date of that juvenile court order is July 2011. The mother filed a modification for the younger child's custody and support in September of 2011. The court ruled on the modification in March 2012 and ruled that the mother's support obligation terminated on the date of the juvenile court order and the father was required to pay support as of the date of that order. As a result the father owed child support arrearage from July 2011 through the date of the modification order. On appeal the father challenged the arrearages because Iowa Code only allows for retroactive modification "only from three months after the date the opposing party received notice." Three months after service is December 2011. Therefore the retroactive obligation is only valid from December 2011 and the father only owes arrearages from that date through the modification.
Statutory educational support obligation only continues until age 22. Divorce decree provided that the father would pay 1/3 of the college costs for his daughter. The daughter took some time off and did not attend college until after age 22. She submitted the bill for 1/3 of her college to her father which he did not pay. The wife filed a motion for rule to show cause. In reviewing the dissolution decree, the trial court determined that the dissolution was an acceptance and approval of a stipulation and settlement between the parties. The court found the husband in contempt. The husband appealed the determination that the dissolution was an adoption of the parties' agreement. During the proceedings neither party could remember a dissolution trial. However, the decree references a hearing and makes reference to counsel's argument. Considering this, the appeals court held that there was not substantial evidence to support the district court's conclusion that the decree is an adoption of the stipulation and settlement. Because the decree was not an adoption of an agreement, the father cannot be required to pay for his daughter's college education beyond the statutory age of 22.