IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RICHARD L. COOK AND SUSAN K. COOK Upon the Petition of RICHARD L. COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning SUSAN K. COOK, Respondent-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Kevin
Cook appeals the pension and spousal support provisions of a
decree of dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED AS
Michael K. Lang of Knuth Law Office, Anamosa, for appellant.
A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
and Susan Cook married in 1984 and divorced in 2016. Richard
appeals the pension and spousal support provisions of the
Background Facts and Proceedings
was fifty-nine years old at the time of trial, had a high
school education, and was in good health. He farmed 183 acres
owned by his father and later placed in trust. He also worked
for the Cryovac Division of Sealed Air Company from 1975
until 2009, when the company relocated to another state. He
held various temporary positions after that point.
was fifty-seven years old, had a high school education, and
was in good health. She initially worked on an assembly line.
During her first pregnancy, she and Richard agreed she would
give up her employment. In 1998, she resumed employment as a
preschool paraprofessional, working approximately thirty
hours a week. She later added a weekend job as a housekeeper.
time of trial, the couple's three children were adults
and the sole issues for resolution involved property and
spousal support. The district court set aside Richard's
inherited property to him and attempted to equally divide
most of the couple's joint assets and the largest of the
couple's liabilities. Richard's pension from his
thirty-four years of employment with Sealed Air was divided
pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)
affording Susan "50% of the marital factor of
31/34." As for spousal support, the court ordered
Richard to pay Susan $800.00 per month until "Susan
dies, Richard dies or Susan remarries."
moved for enlarged findings and conclusions. The district
court denied the motion and this appeal followed.