IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CINDY KAY RAHN AND CHAD ALLEN RAHN Upon the Petition of CINDY KAY RAHN, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning CHAD ALLEN RAHN, Respondent-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L.
husband appeals the award of spousal support to his former
S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for
P. Beauvais Jr., Sioux City, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., McDonald, J., and Goodhue, S.J.
GOODHUE, SENIOR JUDGE.
Kay Rahn filed an appeal from the decree dissolving her
marriage with Chad Allen Rahn, and Chad filed a cross-appeal.
Cindy failed to file a brief or a designation of appendix. On
its own motion, the supreme court issued a default notice to
Cindy, but there was no response, and Cindy's appeal was
dismissed. Chad was designated to proceed as the appellant.
In accordance with the order, Chad filed a brief and
designation of appendix. The only issue raised by Chad on
appeal is the amount of spousal support he is required to pay
under the terms of the decree. We affirm.
parties were married May 28, 1992. Three children have been
born to the marriage but only one, T.A.R., born in 2001, was
a minor at the time of the dissolution proceeding. The
parties were both in their early forties when the trial was
held in July 2016.
trial court dissolved the marriage and resolved the custody,
child support, medical support, property and debt division,
and spousal support issues. The trial court found Cindy's
income to be $25, 111 per year and Chad's income to be
$58, 900 per year. The trial court, after fixing values and
making a division, found that Chad was awarded property worth
$3071 more than the property that was awarded to Cindy. The
parties were awarded joint legal custody of T.A.R., and Chad
was named as the physical custodian. A visitation schedule
was duly set out. In addition, child support was set at
$376.96 per month. Chad was ordered to maintain the existing
health insurance covering T.A.R., and provision for uncovered
medical expense was made. Spousal support payable from Chad
to Cindy was set at $600 per month to terminate on
Cindy's remarriage or upon her death. Cindy had proceeded
pro se at the time of trial.
contended, and continues to contend in his appellate brief,
that Cindy was not earning an income that reflected her full
earning capacity. He contends the setting of spousal support
on her current wage of $10.85 per hour instead of being set
at her full earning capacity is not equitable. Cindy
currently works at a warehouse. She was employed continuously
during the marriage. There is no evidence that she ever
earned more than $10.85 per hour for any significant period.
She has received training and is certified as a medical
coder. There was evidence that employment as a medical coder
would justify income of $19.00 per hour. Nevertheless, Cindy
has never been able to obtain a position as a medical coder
in spite of repeated attempts, applications, and interviews.
She once had an offer of $10 per hour to work as a medical
coder, but she and Chad jointly decided the offer was not
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
dissolution is an equitable proceeding. Therefore, our
standard of review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.
Although the review is de novo, we give weight to the
district court's factual determinations, but they are not
binding on us. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). Even though our
review is de novo, the trial court is given considerable
latitude, and we will not disturb the trial court's order
unless there has been a failure to do equity. In re
Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa 2005).