Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re the Marriage of Kimberly K. Grampp and William T.

April 10, 2013

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KIMBERLY K. GRAMPP AND WILLIAM T. GRAMPP UPON THE PETITION OF KIMBERLY K. GRAMPP, PETITIONER-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, AND CONCERNING WILLIAM T. GRAMPP, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE.


Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Paul L. Macek, Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Miller, S.J.

A husband appeals, and a wife cross-appeals, certain economic provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Considered by Eisenhauer, C.J., Danilson, J., and Miller, S.J.*fn1

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

William (W.T.) and Kimberly (Kim) Grampp were married in 1994. Kim filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on February 22, 2011. The parties have one child, who was seventeen years old at the time of the dissolution hearing in July 2012. The physical care and support of the child were resolved through stipulation, and are not an issue in this appeal.

At the time of the marriage in 1994 W.T. was the sole shareholder in Grampp Realty, Inc., which was valued at $152,935. His total assets at that time were worth $408,973, and included an IRA valued at $42,009. Kim had net assets worth $83,658. Shortly before the marriage the parties entered into a premarital agreement which provided Kim would retain all the property she then owned, "all appreciation of such property and property substituted therefore, and all property acquired by Kim by her work, earnings, personal service, and by gift or inheritance, either before or subsequent to said marriage." W.T. retained all his shares in Grampp Realty, "all property acquired by W.T. by gift or inheritance, either before or subsequent to said marriage, and all appreciation of such shares and property and property substituted therefore." The parties largely kept their finances separate throughout the marriage.

Kim was fifty-one years old at the time of the dissolution hearing. She remained in the marital home with the parties' child. Kim has a college degree in mechanical engineering and a master's degree in business administration. She was employed by John Deere & Company, where she had a base annual salary of $150,000. She often receives a bonus, and in 2011 her gross salary was $209,629. She has a defined benefit pension program with John Deere, and participates in a stock purchase program. The district court determined Kim's net worth increased by about $1,164,000 during the marriage.*fn2

W.T. was fifty-five years old at the time of the dissolution hearing. He lives in a condominium owned by his mother. He does not pay rent, but pays for utilities, taxes, and association fees. W.T. has been the sole owner of Grampp Realty, located in Davenport, Iowa, since 1985. His company's share of the local real estate market has decreased over time. In recent years W.T. has received a salary of $75,000 from Grampp Realty. He also receives dividend income, which was $4950 in 2011. In addition, the company pays for some of his expenses, such as a vehicle. W.T. has two IRAs, one valued at $161,140 and the other at $485,664. The court found W.T.'s net worth during the marriage had increased by about $2,200,000.*fn3

The district court issued a dissolution decree for the parties on August 13, 2012. The parties had stipulated to several issues, and the court approved the parties' stipulation.*fn4 One provision of the stipulation was that Kim would be awarded the marital residence and would reimburse W.T. for one-half of its value. The court also determined it would enforce the parties' premarital agreement. There were two main issues in dispute-whether W.T.'s two IRAs were marital property, subject to division, and whether Kim should receive credit for improvements she made to the marital residence.

The district court found:

The source of the two IRA's present value is a combination of the normal growth of the assets and the respondent's contributions to the asset. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate the precise amount of growth of the approximate $42,000 respondent brought to the marriage in respect to these IRAs. Further, there was no evidence adduced as to the amount of the respondent's contributions.

The court awarded to W.T. the IRA valued at $161,140, finding his original IRA of about $42,000 would have approximately that much value today. The court determined the other IRA, which was valued at $485,664, should be evenly divided between the parties.

Kim claimed she had made improvements to the marital residence which had cost $36,505. The district court found "many of the items set forth as improvements could be considered to be routine maintenance." The court also noted that the overall condition of the house was considered to be average, and found that the improvements did not seem to have a consequential effect on the value of the real estate. The court found there was no evidence as to when the improvements had been made. The court additionally found, "[Kim] well knew that any money she spent on this was money that was being devoted to a joint asset." The court did not give her any credit for the money she had spent on improvements to the marital residence.

W.T. has appealed, and Kim has cross-appealed, the property division made by the district court in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.