IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIANNE R. SCHENKELBERG AND GARY W. SCHENKELBERG Upon the Petition of JULIANNE R. SCHENKELBERG, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning GARY W. SCHENKELBERG, Respondent-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, William C.
Schenkelberg appeals the district court's order denying
his petition to modify the parties' dissolution decree to
decrease his spousal support obligation to Julianne
Gregory J. Siemann of Green, Siemann & Greteman PLC,
Carroll, for appellant.
Salvo and Bryan D. Swain of Salvo, Deren, Schenck, Gross,
Swain & Argotsinger, PC, Harlan, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
the second appeal arising from the spousal support provision
of Gary and Julianne Schenkelberg's dissolution decree.
The couple married in 1994 and divorced in 2009. The district
court ordered Gary to pay Julianne spousal support of $5000
per month until she turned sixty-two, died, or remarried, and
$2000 per month thereafter, until she turned seventy, died,
appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court increased his obligation to
$7000 per month until Julianne's death or remarriage.
See In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824
N.W.2d 481, 488 (Iowa 2012). The court reasoned that the
district court failed to consider his "substantial
distributions" from his subchapter S corporation.
Id. at 484-85. Specifically, the court stated:
As long as Gary has an interest in the corporation, there is
no reason to believe that he will not be receiving a
substantial cash distribution from the corporation, even if
he no longer receives a salary from it. Moreover, if he
divests himself from his ownership in the corporation, we
believe the value he will receive for his interest in the
corporation will generate sufficient funds to reinvest in
another asset that will provide him with substantial income.
Id. at 487.
time, Gary filed a petition to modify the spousal support
provision. He testified deterioration in the agricultural
economy required a forced sale of the business and his
advancing age and declining health prevented him from
obtaining meaningful employment.
district court denied the petition after finding "no
material change of circumstance or one that was not
contemplated by the supreme court." Gary moved for
enlarged findings and conclusions. The district court denied
the motion, reasoning as follows:
[T]his Court will stand with its ruling recently filed and
order that the $7000 per month continue. The Court does so
for a number of reasons. First, it was contemplated by the
[supreme court] that [Gary] might ultimately sell his
income-producing business and reinvest in other
income-producing properties. This indeed has happened. [Gary]
has received substantial funds as noted in the opinion.
Further, [Gary] has invested in several businesses and is
currently building a home valued at $1 million.
In short, the Court once again reiterates that [Gary]'s
financial position is very secure, and his financial holdings