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 Wallert

Court of Appeals of Iowa

October 25, 2017

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANNIE M. WALLERT AND BRIAN E. SCHADE Upon the Petition of ANNIE M. WALLERT, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning BRIAN E. SCHADE, Respondent-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Gary L. McMinimee, Judge.

         Annie Wallert appeals the property division provisions of a decree dissolving her common law marriage to Brian Schade. AFFIRMED; EMERGENCY MOTION DENIED.

          Annie Wallert, Boone, appellant, pro-se.

          Jessica L. Morton of Bruner, Bruner & Reinhart, L.L.P., Carroll, for appellee.

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.

          VOGEL, PRESIDING JUDGE

         Annie Wallert appeals the property division provisions of the decree that dissolved her common-law marriage to Brian Schade. Because we find the property division was equitable and because little or no evidence supports Wallert's remaining claims, including that the district court was not listening to her during the trial, or that it relied on Schade's "false" testimony, we affirm.[1]

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         Wallert and Schade met in 2005 when they began working at the same company. In 2009, Schade won the lottery twice, winning $100, 000 and then $250, 000. With the lottery winnings, Schade bought a home in 2009, with title in his name alone. By 2010, all of Schade's remaining lottery winnings had been spent on cars, a motorcycle, appliances, and what Schade described as the couple, "[having] a lot of fun." In April 2011, Wallert and Schade entered into a common-law marriage, the status of which is not disputed. Also in 2011, Wallert was awarded approximately $112, 000 in a settlement from a workplace wrongful discharge, harassment claim. None of those funds remained at the time of trial.

         In 2012, Schade fell behind on his property taxes and received notice the property was to be sold at tax sale. Since there was no money remaining from the lottery winnings or Wallert's settlement, and Schade was not credit worthy to obtain a loan, Schade executed a quit claim deed to Wallert so she could obtain a loan and redeem the home at the tax sale.

         Within one year of the repurchase, Wallert moved out of the house, taking her clothes and laptop computers the couple bought. In 2014, Schade was injured at work and received a workers compensation settlement for $140, 000. The money received from the settlement was spent on more vehicles including a Kia and a Ford Taurus. None of the cash from this settlement remained at the time of trial. Wallert filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in November 2015, and the matter proceeded to trial in June 2016.

         In September 2016, the district court entered its judgment and decree dissolving the parties' marriage, and denied Wallert's post-trial motion to enlarge the findings, as all issues had been fully addressed in the filed decree. The court awarded Schade the marital home and the furniture, appliances, and other personal property in his possession. Wallert was awarded the Ford Taurus, and any other vehicle in her possession, a laptop computer, all other personal property in her possession, and all bank accounts in her name.

         Wallert now appeals, asserting the district court's property distribution was inequitable. She contends the court should have awarded her additional property, including the house. Schade requests appellate attorney fees.

         II. ...


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.