Opinion
No. 5-054 / 04-0948
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, Joel E. Swanson, Judge.
Scott Mack appeals the property division in the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Erin E. McCullough of the Law Offices of Erin E. McCullough, Lake View, for appellant.
Bruce Becker of Vest, Becker Murray, Sac City, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Scott and Connie Mack were married in 1988. It was a second marriage for both parties, and they both brought assets to the marriage. Scott is self-employed as a truck driver, and he has annual income of about $18,000 to $20,000. Connie owns a convenience store, where she works, and she has annual income of about $18,000.
The district court issued a dissolution decree for the parties on May 12, 2004. The court awarded Scott assets worth $118,282 and ordered him to pay debts of $12,850, giving him a net award of $105,432. The court awarded Connie assets worth $113,992 and ordered her to pay debts of $33,388, giving her a net award of $80,603. Scott has appealed.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g).
III. Property Division
Scott contends the district court improperly valued some assets. He also claims the court gave Connie credit for her premarital assets, but did not set aside to him the assets he brought to the marriage. Scott asserts that Connie received an excess amount of the parties' marital assets.
The partners in a marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Dean, 642 N.W.2d 321, 325 (Iowa Ct.App. 2002). Iowa courts do not require an equal division or percentage distribution. In re Marriage of Campbell, 623 N.W.2d 585, 586 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each particular circumstance. In re Marriage of Miller, 552 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). Generally, when a district court's valuation of assets is well within the permissible range of the evidence we are not inclined to disturb it. In re Marriage of Hoak, 364 N.W.2d 185, 192-93 (Iowa 1985).
Looking at the property division as a whole, we find it is equitable. The district court's valuation of assets was within the permissible range of the evidence, and we will not disturb these valuations on appeal. See id. While the district court set aside to Connie her premarital assets, and did not do the same for Scott, the court also awarded Scott more assets than Connie. See In re Marriage of Lattig, 318 N.W.2d 811, 815 (Iowa Ct. App. 1982) (noting that premarital assets are not necessarily set aside to one spouse, but may be divided as marital property). We affirm the property distribution set forth in the parties' dissolution decree.
IV. Attorney Fees
Connie seeks attorney fees for this appeal. We determine each party should pay his or her own appellate attorney fees.
We affirm as modified. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Scott.