IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA SUE TETER AND CLARENCE WAYNE TETER Upon the Petition of ANGELA SUE TETER, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning CLARENCE WAYNE TETER, Respondent-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Steven J.
Teter appeals the district court decision denying his motion
to modify spousal support.
L. Wilson-Moore of Wilson Law Firm, Conrad, for appellant.
Chelsey N. Handley-Tomlinson and Larry J. Handley of Handley
Law Firm, P.C., Ankeny, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
Teter appeals the district court's ruling on his petition
for modification of spousal support. We find the spousal
support award is traditional, not reimbursement, and can be
modified. We reverse the district court order as to the
spousal support provision and remand for further proceedings.
Background Facts & Proceedings
and Angela Teter were married in 1993 and have five children.
On December 31, 2012, the court entered a decree dissolving
the marriage. During the marriage, Clarence was the primary
financial support for the family. Angela was primary
caregiver for their children and earned substantially less
than Clarence when she worked outside the home. The
dissolution decree ordered Clarence to pay Angela $600 per
month in spousal support to terminate upon Angela's
remarriage, the death of either party, or upon Clarence's
13, 2017, Clarence filed a petition to modify spousal support
due to an injury lowering his income and Angela's long
engagement and financial support from her fiancé.
Angela has been engaged for four years and owns a house with
her fiancé but states she has no interest in
remarrying. The court concluded the spousal support award was
"reimbursement alimony" and so could not be
modified. Clarence appeals.
Standard of Review
review in this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P.
6.907. We give weight to the factual findings of the district
court, especially when considering the credibility of
witnesses, but are not bound by those findings. Iowa R. App.
P. 6.904(3)(g). "Precedent is of little value as our
determination must depend on the facts of the particular
case." In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d
97, 100 (Iowa 2007).
claims the court wrongly classified the spousal support award
as "reimbursement alimony"; he argues it should be
considered rehabilitative because Angela ...