IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HEATHER LYNN KENNE AND DANIEL JOSEPH KENNE Upon the Petition of HEATHER LYNN KENNE, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning DANIEL JOSEPH KENNE, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D.
Joseph Kenne appeals, and Heather Lynn Kene cross-appeals,
various economic provisions of the decree dissolving their
marriage. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Michael B. Oliver of Oliver Gravett Law Firm, P.C., Windsor
Heights, for appellant/cross-appellee.
L. McCormally and Jennifer H. DeKock of Wandro &
Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
Joseph Kenne appeals various economic provisions of the
decree dissolving his marriage to Heather Lynn Kenne. Heather
cross-appeals. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings
and Heather were married in 1990. After approximately
twenty-five years of marriage, Heather filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage in 2015. The parties have three
children together, one of whom was a minor during the
pendency of this action. Both parties worked during the
marriage. Both parties are in good health, and
neither party has much or any education past high school. The
district court accepted $44, 000 as Heather's income-the
amount used by the parties on the child support guidelines
worksheet-accounting for both her full-time job and the
part-time job she intended to continue working, although
Daniel argues this does not fully account for the tips
Heather received from her part-time position. The district
court accepted $77, 000 as Daniel's income-the amount
used by the parties on the child support guidelines
worksheet-which reflects Daniel's base annual salary but
not his monthly car allowance of $525. Heather argues
Daniel's gross income was nearly $94, 000 in 2015 and
Daniel expects to earn $90, 000 in 2016.
parties had virtually no assets at the time of the
dissolution. They acknowledge they spend a considerable
portion of their income on their minor child's hockey
activities. The record indicates the parties intend to
continue their child's involvement in hockey; therefore,
these costs will be ongoing. Following their separation,
Heather has been renting a one-bedroom flat for $625 per
month. Daniel has been renting a three-bedroom house for
$1000 per month. One of the parties' adult children lives
with Daniel and pays $200 per month toward bills. Daniel
testified health insurance would cost him $650 per month;
Heather testified the cost of health insurance for herself
and the minor child costs her $333 per month.
to trial, the parties mediated and resolved all matters
arising from the dissolution except for Heather's request
for alimony and payment of attorney fees. Following trial,
the district court entered a decree awarding Heather $975 in
alimony to be paid monthly until April 1, 2023, and $575 per
month thereafter. The district court also awarded Heather
$2500 in attorney fees. The parties appealed.
Standard and Scope of Review
review cases tried in equity, such as dissolution cases, de
novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re Marriage of Gust,
858 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2015). We give weight to the
factual findings of the district court, especially when
considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not
bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). Prior cases,
though helpful, have little precedential value because we
must base our decision primarily on the particular
circumstances of the parties presently before us. In re
Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983). We
accord the trial court considerable latitude in making
factual determinations and will disturb the ruling only when
there has been a failure to do equity. Gust, 858
N.W.2d at 406.