In re the Marriage of Torres and Reyes-Pineda ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0224
Filed February 19, 2020
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF OSCAR FRANCISCO TORRES
AND MARIA VENTURA REYES-PINEDA
Upon the Petition of
OSCAR FRANCISCO TORRES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
MARIA VENTURA REYES-PINEDA,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,
Judge.
A former wife challenges the district court’s spousal-support analysis in the
decree dissolving her marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Katherine S. Sargent, Des Moines, for appellant.
Tammy Westhoff Gentry of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry
Brown & Bergmann, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Maria Reyes Pineda and Oscar Francisco Torres divorced after nineteen
years of marriage. In the decree, the district court ordered Oscar to pay $959.51
per month in support for two children. The court also ordered Oscar to pay Maria
one dollar per year in spousal support “to preserve [her] right to pursue a
modification should circumstances change.” On appeal, Maria challenges that
place holder, contending the court should have awarded her traditional spousal
support commencing when Oscar’s child-support obligation ends. Because in the
future Maria would be unable to show termination of child support qualified as a
change in circumstances outside the contemplation of the court issuing the decree,
we find it equitable to modify the decree now to order spousal support.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Oscar and Maria married in August 1999 and divorced in December 2018.
They had three children together. The two younger children, twins, were born in
2003. At the time of the divorce trial, they were sophomores in high school and
lived with Maria.1
Neither Oscar nor Maria continued their education after graduating from
high school in El Salvador. They both spoke primarily Spanish and had minimal
English language skills. Oscar was forty years old at the time of the trial. He
worked as a production supervisor at Pine Ridge Farms, a pork supplier and
processor, earning an annual income of $54,762. Maria was forty-nine years old.
She worked full time at Cintas, which supplies uniforms and other workplace
1 The parties’ eighteen-year-old daughter also lived in the family home with Maria.
3
products, earning thirteen dollars per hour. The court found her annual income to
be $27,040. She was out of the work force for one year after the twins were born,
and again in 2013 to provide care for a family member. Both parties enjoy good
health, though Maria has been taking medication for depression and anxiety for
about fourteen years.
After pretrial stipulations on custody arrangements, the district court
decided three issues: the amount of child support, the propriety of spousal support,
and attorney fees.2 The decree set Oscar’s child support obligation at $959.51 per
month for two children and $662.15 per month for one child (though the support
for the twins was likely to terminate at the same time when they graduated from
high school in May 2021).3
To gauge whether Maria was entitled to spousal support, and if so, how
much, the district court started with “the budgets supplied by the parties in their
respective affidavits of financial status.” The court found Oscar’s monthly
expenses (excluding child support) were $2394, while Maria’s monthly expenses
were $3910. On the other side of the ledger, (taking into account the award of
child support) the court found Oscar’s net monthly income would be $2364, while
Maria’s net monthly income would be $2591.
After setting out those figures, the district court recognized Maria’s
“considerable shortfall in terms of meeting her monthly expenses” (to the tune of
$1319). But still the court concluded Oscar was “not in a position to contribute
2 The parties agreed Maria would continue to live in the marital home with the
children. That house had a mortgage balance of $118,000 and no equity. The
decree directed Maria to apply to refinance the home in her name.
3 The court did not order a postsecondary-education subsidy.
4
further in the form of spousal support.” Thus, the court declined to award alimony
though the length of the marriage and Maria’s “obstacles in becoming self-
sufficient” would suggest the appropriateness of traditional spousal support.
Instead, the court awarded one dollar per year to ensure that Maria could “pursue
a modification should circumstances change.”
Spousal support is the sole issue on appeal.
II. Scope and Standard of Review
The district court considers a divorce case in equity, so we review its ruling
de novo. In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). We will
disturb a spousal support determination only when the court fails to do equity
between the parties. Id.III. Analysis
No divorcing party can claim an absolute right to spousal support. In re
Marriage of Fleener, 247 N.W.2d 219, 220 (Iowa 1976). The propriety of such a
stipend depends on the circumstances of each case. Id. Iowa courts consider a
host of statutory factors in deciding whether to grant spousal support. See Iowa
Code § 598.21A(1) (2018). Particularly relevant to our decision here is the parties’
nearly twenty-year marriage, as well as their ages and earning capacities. These
parties teeter on the “durational threshold” where traditional alimony merits serious
consideration.4 See In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402, 410–11 (Iowa 2015).
And the district court appreciated Maria’s “obstacles” in becoming self-supporting.
4 Traditional alimony is owed for the life span of the receiving spouse or so long as
that spouse is incapable of self-support. In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312,
316 (Iowa 2005).
5
But the court faced the stark reality that Oscar could not afford to pay any amount
over and above his child-support obligation. See id. at 412 (“Where a spouse does
not have the ability to pay traditional spousal support, however, none will be
awarded.”).
That reality is not lost on Maria. She does not dispute the court’s finding
that Oscar cannot afford to pay spousal support on top of his child support
obligation. So she asks for traditional spousal support of $600 per month to start
in June 2021—after the twins graduate from high school. To justify that award,
she underscores the length of the marriage, and the fact that Oscar is nine years
younger and earns about twice as much annually. She contends that amount of
spousal support is necessary to meet her expenses and build more equity for her
retirement.
In response, Oscar does not contradict Maria’s case for alimony. Rather he
argues it would be “best advanced” during a modification proceeding when the
court is in a better position to assess their relative incomes and expenses.
Indeed, to protect Maria’s future interests in spousal support, the district
court awarded her the symbolic amount of one dollar per year, anticipating she
could seek modification “should circumstances change.” See In re Marriage of
Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486, 489 (Iowa 1995) (“It was important that the initial decree
awarded some alimony because where no alimony is initially awarded the decree
cannot be modified to allow any.”). But, as Maria points out, the court’s dollar
award would allow for modification only if she could later identify a substantial
change in circumstances not within the knowledge or contemplation of the court
when it entered the decree. See In re Marriage of Sisson, 843 N.W.2d 866, 871
6
(Iowa 2014). Undeniably, the district court knew the twins would graduate from
high school and reach the age of majority in May 2021. See Mears v. Mears, 213
N.W.2d 511, 516 (1973) (declining to modify when prior court “took into
consideration that the boys would grow older”). Given that knowledge, the
termination of Oscar’s $959 per month child support obligation in 2021 would not
qualify as a substantial change outside the contemplation of the court issuing the
decree.
We find it inequitable to ask Maria to wait, file a petition to modify based on
the termination of child support, and then face a probable denial because the court
contemplated this exact circumstance in the decree. It is unlikely Maria’s financial
situation will take a dramatic upturn before the summer of 2021. As things stand,
both Oscar and the district court essentially acknowledge Maria is a candidate for
traditional spousal support. Under these circumstances, it is a better use of judicial
resources, and more respectful of the parties’ means, to order spousal support as
part of this original proceeding. If a substantial change in circumstances does
occur, whereby Maria becomes self-supporting or Oscar experiences an
unforeseen financial hardship, then Oscar can seek modification.
As Maria notes, it is not unusual in our case law for the decree to order an
increase in spousal support once a child support burden lessens. See, e.g., Gust,
858 N.W.2d at 404 (affirming award of spousal support which increases from
$1400 to $2000 per month upon termination of child support); Olson, 705 N.W.2d
at 315 (ordering alimony to increase from $1000 to $1750 per month after child
support obligation ended); Locke v. Locke, 263 N.W.2d 694, 695 (Iowa 1978)
(increasing alimony from $200 to $300 per month after child support terminated).
7
Following this line of authority, we conclude Oscar’s spousal support should
increase from one dollar per year to $500 per month in traditional spousal support
starting when his child support obligation ends. These spousal support payments
shall terminate upon Maria’s remarriage; upon the death of either party; or when
Maria begins to receive social security retirement benefits. We find a monthly
stipend of $500 is appropriate given the parties’ net incomes, their education
background and future earning capacities, and the difference of nine years before
Oscar reaches retirement age. Oscar discourages setting a specific amount of
spousal support in this proceeding in favor of a “wait-and-see” approach to
consider the financial situations of each party at that time. As we have indicated,
that would be an appropriate time for a modification petition. Costs are assessed
equally between the parties.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.