IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIE DALBY AND DOUGLAS DALBY Upon the Petition of JULIE DALBY, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning DOUGLAS DALBY, Respondent-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K.
husband appeals from the district court's division of
assets in the parties' dissolution decree.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
D. Fisher of Nidey Erdahl Fisher Pilkington & Meier, PLC,
Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
A. Judas of Nazette, Marner, Nathanson & Shea LLP, Cedar
Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Dalby appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to
Julie Dalby. Douglas maintains the division of marital assets
was inequitable and asks us to modify the equalization
payment due to him from the amount of $31, 331.55 to $112,
770.24. He also asks for an award of appellate attorney fees.
In response, Julie maintains the district court's
division was equitable and asks that we award her appellate
Background Facts and Proceedings.
and Julie were married in August 2006. Julie has a child from
a previous relationship who lived with Douglas and Julie
until the child reached majority-approximately the first six
years of their marriage. No children were born of the
filed a petition for dissolution in January 2018. Douglas did
not accept service until April 27, 2018.
a month later, on May 24, 2018, Julie filed notice of her
intent to file for default judgment. Douglas still took no
action, and, on June 5, Julie moved for entry of default. The
clerk entered default against Douglas the next day.
30, counsel for Douglas filed an appearance, an answer to
Julie's petition for dissolution, and a motion to set
aside the default. Julie resisted the motion to set aside,
asserting she had text messages from Douglas that showed his
failure to respond in a timely manner was not due to mistake
or neglect as he indicated he had no intention of contesting
a hearing on in the issue, the district court denied
Douglas's motion to set the default aside, ruling:
Douglas clearly decided he was not going to defend this
action and was going to allow Julie to obtain a default.
Thus, after accepting service, he did nothing to defend and
acknowledged to Julie that he understood he would be
defaulted. He did nothing to contact Julie's counsel or
the court to preserve any rights he might have or inquire as
to what ...