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 Balik

Court of Appeals of Iowa

August 15, 2018

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID CHARLES BALIK AND DEBORAH MARY BALIK Upon the Petition of DAVID CHARLES BALIK, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning DEBORAH MARY BALIK, Respondent-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Paul D. Miller, Judge.

         Deborah Balik appeals the economic provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to David Balik.

          Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, LLP, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

          Crystal L. Usher of Nazette, Marner, Nathanson & Shea LLP, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

          Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.

          VAITHESWARAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

         Deborah and David Balik married in 1987, separated in 2014, and divorced in 2017. On appeal, Deborah contends (1) the district court inequitably divided their property; (2) she should have been awarded spousal support; and (3) David should have been ordered to pay her trial attorney fees. She also seeks an award of appellate attorney fees.

         I. Property Division

         The district court valued the assets subject to division at $592, 160. The court limited Deborah's award to forty percent of that total, based on a finding she "dissipated or wasted marital assets."

         Deborah does not challenge the total valuation figure.[1] Instead, she argues the finding of dissipation was unwarranted and she should have received half "the value [of $592, 160] for a total of $296, 080.00." She requests an additional $59, 216 to equalize the property distribution.

         "A court may generally consider a spouse's dissipation or waste of marital assets prior to dissolution when making a property distribution." In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Iowa 2013). "The dissipation doctrine applies when a spouse's conduct during the period of separation "results in the loss or disposal of property otherwise subject to division at the time of divorce." Id. at 700-01 (emphasis added). "[T]he doctrine does not apply if the spending spouse used the monies for "legitimate household and business expenses." Id. at 701.

         The district court made the following pertinent findings on dissipation:

It is clear that from approximately 2008 on that Deborah spent more than $200, 000 which is largely unaccounted for. This includes the home equity loan, her inheritance, and 401 (k) proceeds. Her testimony that this large amount of money went for living expenses is simply not credible. Some of it may have gone for marital expenses, but a substantial amount has more to do with Deborah's lack of money skills and out-of-control spending. As an example, Deborah acknowledged taking more than $4500 in ...

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.