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 Marriage of Bakk

Court of Appeal of Iowa

November 6, 2013

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSHUA DAVID BAKK AND ELIZABETH ANN BAKK Upon the Petition of JOSHUA DAVID BAKK, Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, And Concerning ELIZABETH ANN BAKK, n/k/a ELIZABETH ANN JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.

Joshua Bakk appeals and Elizabeth Bakk cross-appeals from the decree dissolving their marriage.

Amy L. Reasner of Lynch Dallas, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Richard F. Mitvalsky of Gray, Stefani & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Heard by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.

BOWER, J.

Joshua Bakk (Josh) appeals and Elizabeth Bakk (Liz) cross-appeals from the decree dissolving their marriage. Josh contends the district court erred in failing to require Liz to submit to random alcohol testing, not including language which would require their child remain in daycare during summer mornings, and in dividing the parties' assets. Liz contends the district court valued the parties' real estate holdings improperly. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Josh and Liz Bakk were married on August 2, 2002 and have one child who is now four years old. The parties originally resided in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, and moved to Marion, Iowa, in 2007. During the marriage they jointly owned a residence in Iowa and two pieces of investment real estate in Illinois. They also owned several retirement/investment accounts and two vehicles.

At the time of trial Josh was residing in the marital home with the child. He was given temporary physical care of the child in April 2011 while Liz was seeking treatment for alcohol abuse. The district court found the parties have worked together regarding issues of custody and visitation, and the child spends significant time with each parent.

Trial was held on May 15, 16, and 31, 2012. The district court entered a decree dividing the parties' property and addressing issues of support and custody. The marital home was awarded to Josh, according to the parties' wishes, and assigned a value of $320, 573. Subtracting the amount still owed on the mortgage, the equity in the home was found to be $76, 606.36. When valuing the home, the district court rejected Josh's request to subtract fees associated with the sale of the home from the home's value. The district court also decided the two condominiums owned by the parties in Illinois each had an identical value of $35, 000.[1] The investment/retirement accounts were valued and divided with no allowance for contributions made before the marriage. The parties were awarded joint legal custody and joint physical care of the child. Josh's request to require Liz to submit to random alcohol testing was rejected. Josh was ordered to pay $308 per month in child support and $500 per month in alimony for a period of thirty-six months. Finally, the court ordered a one-time equalization payment from Josh to Liz. Other divisions of property and findings by the district court were not appealed.

II. Standard of Review

As an equitable proceeding, we review the decree of dissolution de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. Though we are not bound by the findings of the district court, we will give them weight. In re Marriage of Sjulin, 431 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Iowa 1988). We give substantial weight to credibility evaluations made by the district court. In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Iowa 2007).

III. Discussion

A. Alcohol Testing


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.