Opinion
No. 1-904 / 01-0144.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, JERROLD W. JORDAN, Judge.
Marvin Clark appeals from property division provisions of a post-dissolution decree. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Martha L. Mertz, Knoxville, for appellant.
James Vernon Hicks, Knoxville, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
The marriage of Marvin and Dorothy Clark was dissolved on August 22, 1997. Included in the divorce decree were provisions requiring Marvin to continue the parties' farming operation until the end of the crop year and then divide equally any remaining assets. On August 10, 1999, Dorothy filed an application to show cause, requesting Marvin be found in contempt of court for failing to divide the remaining assets as required by the decree. The district court appointed a master, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 207, who assisted in investigating and preparing a plan to equitably divide the remaining marital property, which the court adopted subject to minor modifications on September 18, 2000. In response to Dorothy's subsequent application for equitable relief claiming the court erred in failing to require delivery of "one-half of the proceeds from 1998 totaling $21,231.57," the court recalculated the division of assets, increasing Dorothy's share by $4981.42.
On appeal Marvin argues that this recalculation resulted in an inequitable division of assets because Marvin's failure to divide the 1998 farming proceeds had already been accounted for in the "Special Master's Report." Also, he contends that the recalculation failed to deduct half of the master's fee and farming expenses from Dorothy's share and to prorate the funds available for distribution.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the district court erred in recalculating the division of the marital assets to account for Marvin's failure to split the 1998 farming proceeds. See Iowa R. App. P. 4; Rowen v. Lemars Mut. Ins. Co., 347 N.W.2d 630, 634 (Iowa 1984) (review in equitable actions is de novo). Our review of the "Special Master's Report" reflects that the court sought an equitable division of property by calculating the income received on marital assets between the years 1997 and 2000, subtracting associated expenses incurred by either party, and then assigning half of the net proceeds to each party. This division accounted for Marvin's failure to pay Dorothy her share of farming proceedings, including that earned in 1998. We find no clear error in the master's report, as adopted by the court on September 18, 2000, and thus reverse the district court's ruling. See Rowen, 347 N.W.2d at 634 (In reviewing the master's findings of fact "this court must `review the evidence before the master in an equity case to determine whether the findings adopted by the [district] court are clearly erroneous.'") (quoting Iowa Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sioux City, 252 Iowa 380, 386, 107 N.W.2d 109, 112 (1961)); see also Nelson v. Barnick, 245 Iowa 982, 989-90, 63 N.W.2d 911, 916 (1954) (finding is clearly erroneous if reviewing court on the entire record has a definite and firm conviction mistake has been committed).
Each party's share was subsequently prorated to account for a shortage of available funds.
The district court decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this decision.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.