Upload
thesacnews
View
245
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2RDM03
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING
UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.
Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 ORDER FOR TRIAL ON PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
On September 23, 2013 , the above-entitled matter is presented to the Court forattention. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage has been on file for more than 90days. The Court finds that this matter should be scheduled for trial pursuant to districtadministrative rule number 2.7. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows: 1. This matter shall be scheduled for trial by the court administrator as soon aspracticable. One day has been allocated for trial. The parties shall inform the courtadministrator if additional time is required. 2. If a party believes that this case should be exempted from automaticassignment for trial, the parties shall file an application for exemption, stating thereasons therefore, within ten days of the filing of this order. The application shall besigned personally by the party making the application. A copy shall be sent to thecourt administrator. The application shall be brought to the attention of the Court in themanner of a motion. 3. Not later than five days prior to the trial, the parties shall exchange exhibitsand exhibit list(Petitioner to use numbers and Respondent to use letters.) Further, thefollowing shall be filed with the clerk of court at the same time: (a) Each party's current affidavit of financial status, if not previously filed;
1 of 3
E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
(b) Each party's child support guidelines worksheet (if applicable and notpreviously filed); (c) Each party's certificate of completion of Children in the Middle (if applicable); (d) The pretrial stipulation form prescribed by the Court, which shall containeach party's proposal for resolution of all pending issues. If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability coordinator at641-421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disablity coordinators cannot provide legal advice. CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHARTMITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Petition File Date: 06/25/13
2 of 3
E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Case Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLING
Type: ORDER DIRECTING CT. ADMIN. TO SET TRIAL DATE
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2013-09-23 15:13:57
3 of 3
E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2013 JUL 15 12:45 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2013 JUL 22 3:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2013 JUL 22 3:11 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2013 JUL 24 10:46 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RDM03
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING
UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.
Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 ORDER FOR TRIAL ON PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
On September 23, 2013 , the above-entitled matter is presented to the Court forattention. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage has been on file for more than 90days. The Court finds that this matter should be scheduled for trial pursuant to districtadministrative rule number 2.7. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows: 1. This matter shall be scheduled for trial by the court administrator as soon aspracticable. One day has been allocated for trial. The parties shall inform the courtadministrator if additional time is required. 2. If a party believes that this case should be exempted from automaticassignment for trial, the parties shall file an application for exemption, stating thereasons therefore, within ten days of the filing of this order. The application shall besigned personally by the party making the application. A copy shall be sent to thecourt administrator. The application shall be brought to the attention of the Court in themanner of a motion. 3. Not later than five days prior to the trial, the parties shall exchange exhibitsand exhibit list(Petitioner to use numbers and Respondent to use letters.) Further, thefollowing shall be filed with the clerk of court at the same time: (a) Each party's current affidavit of financial status, if not previously filed;
1 of 3
E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
(b) Each party's child support guidelines worksheet (if applicable and notpreviously filed); (c) Each party's certificate of completion of Children in the Middle (if applicable); (d) The pretrial stipulation form prescribed by the Court, which shall containeach party's proposal for resolution of all pending issues. If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability coordinator at641-421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disablity coordinators cannot provide legal advice. CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHARTMITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Petition File Date: 06/25/13
2 of 3
E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Case Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLING
Type: ORDER DIRECTING CT. ADMIN. TO SET TRIAL DATE
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2013-09-23 15:13:57
3 of 3
E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Notice Id: 2CA004IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , Plaintiff / Petitioner, vs. MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , Defendant / Respondent.
Notice of Civil Trial Setting Conference Case No: 02811 CDDM001883
A scheduling conference will be held on 10/17/13 at 11:00 AM with Kellie Orres, as District CourtDesignee, pursuant to I.R.C.P 1.602. This conference shall be conducted by telephone conference call initiated by plaintiff's counsel. Kellie Orres may be contacted via telephone at: (515) 574-3752. 1. PARTICIPATION: All attorneys appearing in the case shall participate in this conference. A partywho is not represented by counsel shall contact the Court Administrator's office (at the above phonenumber) prior to the date and time of the conference call. 2. TRIAL SCHEDULING: A firm trial date shall be established in accordance with the SupremeCourt's time standards as provided by Chapter 23, Iowa Court Rules. NO CONTINUANCES SHALLBE GRANTED EXCEPT BY COURT ORDER, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN. 3. SANCTIONS: If a party or attorney fails to participate in the scheduling conference or issubstantially unprepared to participate in the conference, the Court may impose appropriatesanctions, including reasonable expenses and attorney fees. (I.R.C.P 1.602(5)). /s/ Kellie Orres --------------------------------------- Designee of the Court Clerk to provide copies ornotice of document to attorneysof record and parties appearing
E-FILED 2013 SEP 24 2:38 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
pro se.
E-FILED 2013 SEP 24 2:38 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Recipient ListCase ID : 02811 CDDM001883 - MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS
MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGEvent Cd : OFTN
RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHART filedERIN ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGH filed
E-FILED 2013 SEP 24 2:38 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2013 OCT 15 10:12 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Notice Id: 2CA101
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , Plaintiff / Petitioner, vs. MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , Defendant / Respondent.
Case No: 02811 CDDM001883 Trial Notice
The above entitled matter is hereby scheduled for non-jury trial on 02/11/14 at 09:00 AM . 1 Day Property/VisitationDiscovery Due 60 days prior to trial /s/ Kellie Orres ----------------------------------- Designee of the Court Clerk to provide copies or noticeof this document to attorneys of record,parties appearing pro se andjudge if assigned Docket Code = OSTR
E-FILED 2013 OCT 21 3:30 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Recipient ListCase ID : 02811 CDDM001883 - MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS
MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGEvent Cd : OSTR
RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHART filedERIN ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGH filed
E-FILED 2013 OCT 21 3:30 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2013 NOV 04 10:06 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2014 JAN 02 3:30 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLING ****************************************************************************** MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING, * EQUITY NO. CDDM001883 * Petitioner, * * MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND CONCERNING * * MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING, * * Respondent. * ****************************************************************************** COMES NOW the Mistaya Hoefling, Petitioner herein, and moves the Court for a
continuance in the above case. In support thereof Petitioner states to the Court as follows:
1. Trial in this case is set for February 11, 2014.
2. Both parties own stock in a family trucking business.
2. On December 12, 2013, Petitioner emailed to Respondent’s attorney a Joint
Stipulation in an effort to begin settlement negotiations.
3. On December 17, 2013, the Respondent’s attorney emailed the Joint Stipulation
back to our office with their revisions. After reviewing their revisions, the only issues at hand
were based around the children.
4. On January 3, 2014, we emailed our revisions to the Joint Stipulation back to the
Respondent’s attorney.
5. On January 9, 2014, we received an email from Respondent’s attorney that he was
not agreeing to the settlement dollar amount as it related to the corporate shares of this trucking
business. We had discussed hiring an expert to value the Hoefling Trucking business with our
client early on, but decided against it since the business settlement dollar amount was not an
issue in their revision of December 17, 2013. The cost of a full-fledged evaluation exceeds
E-FILED 2014 JAN 10 3:26 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
$3,500 and Petitioner was not going to incur that cost if it was not necessary.
6. Petitioner and the undersigned were making good faith efforts to settle this matter
out of Court. Petitioner will now have to hire and expert to value the business and there is not
time for that with the trial being one month away. Had Petitioner known that this was an issue
an expert would have been hired in December to prepare for trial.
7. Respondent resists a continuance of the trial in this case. The Court would be
benefitted by a business evaluation prepared by an expert.
WHEREFORE the Petitioner requests that the Court enter an Order allowing this Motion
for Continuance and for whatever other relief the Court deems just and equitable in its premises.
DATED this 10th day of January, 2014.
RHINEHART LAW, P.C.
BY R. Scott Rhinehart, #AT0006666 505 5th St., Ste. 310 Sioux City, IA 51101 (712) 258-8706 (712) 233-3417 (fax) [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys of record herein at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleading on January 10, 2014. By: _____ U.S. Mail ______ Facsimile _____ Hand delivered ______ Overnight courier __X__ Efile _____ Other ____________________________ Signature /s/ Melissa Johnk
E-FILED 2014 JAN 10 3:26 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2014 JAN 13 10:49 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2014 JAN 13 10:49 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RDM01
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING
UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.
Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 O R D E R
Motion for Continuance came on for telephonic hearing by agreement of the parties onJanuary 23, 2014.
A review of the file indicates that trial notice was filed on October 21, 2013, followinga trial setting conference. The notice scheduled the trial for February 11, 2014. Itprovided one day property/visitation. It further directed that discovery was due 60 daysprior to trial.
It appears that respondent is involved in a family trucking business and that there aresix outstanding shares, each party in this case having one share. Respondent made anoffer to settle this matter conditioned on acceptance by December 23, 2013. The offerwas not so accepted. Petitioner filed her Motion for Continuance seeking time to retainan evaluation expert. Notwithstanding the filing of the Motion on January 10, 2013, thisCourt first became aware of the Motion on January 22, 2014. In this Court's view, theparties have had adquate time to prepare for the trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial is overruled.1 of 3
E-FILED 2014 JAN 27 12:23 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO: RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHARTERIN ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGHDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR
2 of 3
E-FILED 2014 JAN 27 12:23 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLINGType: OTHER ORDER
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-01-27 12:24:31
3 of 3
E-FILED 2014 JAN 27 12:23 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RDM02
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING
UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.
Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATE
COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM(The court reporter shall file this memorandum with the district court clerk.)
Appearances:For Plaintiff/Petitioner: Scott RinehartFor Defendant/Respondent: Erin McCulloughOther: Information required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.903(3):I, Tara Gibson, am providing the following information as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure1.903(3): 1. The type of proceeding that was reported: Dissolution 2. The date(s) on which the proceeding occurred: February 11, 2014 3. The name of the court reporter who reported the proceeding: Tara Gibson 4. The name of the judge who presided over the proceeding: Gary McMinimee 5. The reporting fee for the proceeding: $40.00 6. We, the undersigned judge before whom the above-entitled case was tried, and the official courtreporter who, by order of the Court, reported the same, do hereby certify that the above and foregoingis the report of the whole proceedings upon the trial and/or hearing of the above-entitled cause madeand taken pursuant to the order and direction of the Court, in accordance with Iowa Code Section624.10. /s/Tara Gibson _________________________________________
1 of 3
E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 1:58 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2 of 3
E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 1:58 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLINGType: COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATE
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-02-11 13:59:34
3 of 3
E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 1:58 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , Plaintiff, vs. MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , Defendant.
Case No: 02811 CDDM001883 EXHIBIT LIST Dissolution February 11, 2014 Presiding Judge: Gary McMinimee
The following exhibits were offered and admitted by the Court at the hearing as shown above: Petitioner's Exhibits 1. Pay stub.2-8 Not offered9. Balance sheet 1/19/1310. Balance sheet 1/2/1211. Balance sheet 1/30/1112. Photos of kids13. Photo of Mistaya and A.H.14. Photo of Mistaya and G.M.15. Photo with Mistay's parents16. Photos of the inside of home17. Information on Cerebral Palsy18. Information on Garner's Syndrome19. IPERS statement20. Child support21. Affidavit of attorney fees Respondent's Exhibits 101. Hoefling Trucking Tax returns years 2005-2012102. Respondent's 2013 W-2103. Petitioner's 2013 Salary104A. Hoefling Trucking Truck and Trailer payments
1 of 3
E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 2:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
104B. Hoefling Outstand debts105. Child support Guidelines Worksheet106A. House appraisal by Swanson106B. House payoff107. Not entered into evidence108. Ron Muhlbauer CPA letter and balance sheet109. Petitioner and Respondent's Personal Tax Returns110. House photos111. House appraisal by MJG Appraisal for Mortgage112. Respondent's Insurance benefits and cost
Court Exhibit 100. Pretrial Stipulation
2 of 3
E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 2:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLINGType: EXHIBIT LIST
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-02-11 14:11:05
3 of 3
E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 2:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
In Re the Marriage Of MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING and MITCHELL LYNN
HOEFLING
Upon The Petition Of
MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING,
Petitioner,
And Concerning
MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING,
Respondent.
NO. CDDM001883
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, and ORDER, JUDGEMENT
and DECREE
On February 11, 2014, this dissolution matter came on for trial to the Court.
The parties appeared with their attorneys of record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The parties met on February 14, 2004 and were married on May 29, 2004.
The Petition was filed on June 25, 2013. Mistaya had maintained in good faith a residence
in Iowa for more than one year immediately preceding the filing of the Petition; her
residence was not for the sole purpose of obtaining a dissolution. Mitchell was served on
June 28, 2013 in Sac County Iowa. Both parties, through the time of trial, resided in the
marital residence at 300 Walnut, Odebolt, Iowa, where they had lived for the previous
seven years.
2. The Petition was filed in good faith and for the purposes set forth therein.
The allegations material to the dissolution of the marriage have been established by
competent evidence. There has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the
extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no
reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.
3. Mitchell has not commenced a separate action for dissolution of marriage and
no such action is pending in any court in this state or elsewhere.
4. The parties are the parents of three children: V.H. (born November 2004);
A.H. (born December 2006); and H.H. (born May 2008). Mistaya also has a child, G.M.,
who was about eighteen months old at the time of the parties’ marriage. G.M.’s father has
never been involved in her life, although he continues to pay child support of $400 per
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
month; Mitchell has been her father figure.
5. Mistaya was born on July 31, 1978. She is in good health. She has
supportive family in the Odebolt area. Her parents moved from Carroll to Odebolt about
five years ago. She has a sister in Sioux City. She sees her sister and her children at
least twice per month.
Mistaya has a degree1 in education from the University of Northern Iowa.
She was just finishing up her schooling at DMACC in Carroll when the parties married.
She had student loans. Following the marriage, she substituted at Odebolt-Arthur
Community Schools and then took a full time position with the school teaching fifth grade
which she has done for the past five years. The children attend the same school which is
about two blocks from the parties’ home. Her annual wage in 2008 was $9,788; in 2009 it
was $9,127; in 2010 it was $22,362; in 2011 was $38,551; and in 2012 was $36,107. Her
wage for the fiscal year 2013-2014 is $41,254.66. Approximately $2,395.15 is withheld for
IPERS, making her current taxable income $38,859.46 per year. The refund value of her
IPERS account is approximately $12,500. The school provides her with individual health
insurance without costs. Mistaya does not work during the summer. She takes classes to
keep her teaching certificate up to date.
6. Mitchell was born on August 23, 1978. He is in good health. Mitchell has
extended family in the area including his parents and several siblings. He expects to find a
residence in Oldebolt, probably living with his brother.
Prior to the parties’ marriage Mitchell completed a degree in agriculture at
Iowa State University. He was working 50 to 55 hours per week as a farm hand when the
parties met. In 2005, Mitchell bought a truck and began driving for Schroeder Trucking in
Odebolt. In 2007, he became employed as a driver for his parents’ business, Hoefling
Trucking LLC. Mitchell’s parents started Hoefling Trucking LLC on June 6, 2005. Until
2011, his parents were the only shareholders of the company. Hoefling Trucking, as an
LLC, passes through income and expenses to its shareholders. The principle business of
Hoefling Trucking LLC has always been hauling market hogs. In 2008, Mitchell had a
wage of $40,300 but it appears his overall net income from trucking was about $30,152; in
2009 he had wages of $40,300 but it appears his net income from trucking was $26,477;
1 Mistaya also has an associate’s degree in marketing which she has not used.
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
and in 2010 he had wages of $41,075 but it appears he had net trucking income of
$25,143 after deducting his unreimbursed employee expenses.
In 2011, the parties and Mitchell’s brother Mathew and his wife, joined
Mitchell’s parents as shareholders in Hoefling Trucking LLC, each having one of the six
outstanding shares. There was no evidence that Mitchell, Mathew or their wives gave any
consideration for the shares. In 2011, Mitchell had wages of $40,356, trucking expenses of
$2,630, and unreimbursed employee business expenses of $13,219; in 2011, each of the
parties received a K-1 from Hoefling Trucking, indicating that their respective share of
ordinary income was $12,579 and that their share of depreciation was $10,416. In 2012,
Mitchell had wages of $59,946, out of which $14,426.05 was withheld for health insurance.
He had office expense of $880 and unreimbursed employee business expenses of
$16,321. Each of the parties received a K-1 indicating their share of ordinary loss from the
corporation was $6,016 and that their share of net Section 1231 gain was $417. Mitchell’s
W-2 for 2013 shows wages of $63,772.76 including $15,152.76 withheld for medical
insurance. He has no benefits other than his wage. There was no evidence that the
Hoefling Trucking has ever distributed any funds to the parties in their capacity as owners.
Mitchell’s cost to cover himself and the children for medical insurance in 2014
will be $1,142.66 per month. The cost to cover him alone would be $438.29 per month.
The cost to Mitchell to provide dental insurance for him and children will be $120.07 per
month. The cost for covering himself alone for dental insurance would be $43.21 per
month.
7. Hoefling Trucking, at present, employs Mitchell, Mathew and one other
person. It has four owner/operators. Mitchell in addition to driving, dispatches, schedules
the drivers, and does a lot of the paperwork. Mathew has a mechanic’s degree and, in
addition to driving, maintains the vehicles in good condition. Mitchell’s mother pays bills
and handles payroll. Mistaya has not been involved with the company for the last five
years other than to pay a fuel bill on line when requested to do so by Mitchell’s mother and
to occasionally pick up a part. Mitchell’s parents own the land and building where the
trucks are maintained. They pay the taxes on the building and land. For the last few
years, Hoefling Trucking has paid for the water and utilities used by it on the site.
In 2011 Hoefling Trucking had income of $75,474. In 2012 it had a loss of
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
$36,093. Ninety five percent of the business of Hoefling Trucking is hauling market hogs
for Maschhoffs, LLC an Illinois company with hog facilities in Illinois and surrounding
states. They entered into a relationship in June 2010 but it is not an exclusive hauling
arrangement and either party can terminate the relationship at any time without
consequences. Hoefling has recently been short about 15 loads, including two the day
before trial and one on the day of trial; it anticipated being two short the day after. A
serious disease in the hog industry is impacting the hauling of market hogs.
On January 30, 2011, Mitchell’s father signed a financial statement for Iowa
State Bank indicating a net worth for the business of $123,768. On January 2, 2012 the
bank prepared a balance sheet indicating a net worth of $201,789. On February 26, 2013,
Mitchell’s father signed a balance sheet prepared by the bank on January 29, 2013
indicating a net worth of $190,080. Mitchell’s mother testified the January 29, 2013
balance sheet was probably accurate. A balance sheet2 prepared by the bank on January
5, 2014 indicated a net worth of about $142,782.
8. The children have health issues. H.H. has cerebral palsy. He makes use
braces and other appliances that help him. He takes therapy that is intended to maintain
his capabilities. He goes to the Shriner’s Hospital in Minneapolis four times each year
where care is provided without cost. The Shriners also assist with fuel costs and any
necessary overnight accommodations. A.H. has Gardner’s Syndrome, a condition that
greatly increases the risk of cancer. She has a colonoscopy every year. V.H. has an
orthodontic issue which will probably require a surgery that will spread his upper jaw. He is
also struggling with the parties’ divorce.
The children are involved in activities, including dance and sports.
The children have been raised in the Catholic faith. Mitchell is Catholic.
Mistaya is not. Nonetheless, the parties expect the children to continue to be raised within
the Catholic faith. The children attend CCD on Wednesday evenings.
During the marriage, Mistaya has been the children’s primary care provider.
She regularly attends parent-teacher conferences and takes the children to medical and
dental appointments. Mistaya transports the children to their activities. She leaves school
at 3:45 p.m. and the children sometimes wait for her. Sometimes they go to the home of a
2 The January 4, 2014 statement was not offered as an exhibit but its contents were testified to.
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
grandparent.
Mistaya considers Mitchell to be “a loving but disengaged father.” She points
out he is gone two or three nights per week and has not taken a vacation3 for two years.
Mitchell does not believe he is disengaged. He points out that he has attended some
parent-teacher conferences and has taken the children to some medical and dental
appointments. He camps with the children on weekends. Mitchell represents that he
believes the children look to him for advice and would be lost without him. He feels close
to A.H. and sometimes picks her up from school. He regularly hunts with H.H. and picks
him up from school when he can; H.H. always knows where he is. V.H. often walks from
school and calls when he gets home. He, like H.H., always knows where Mitchell is and
they regularly visit before bed. Mitchell acknowledges that he is gone two or three nights
each week driving but points out that he does not leave until after the children are in bed.
Moreover, Mitchell represents that he intends to change the drivers’ schedules so that he
can spend more time with the children. Recently he has been home with the children after
school. He represents that he is willing to transport the children to activities.
The children regularly see both extended families. The children are close to
both sets of grandparents. H.H. generally leaves preschool before lunch and rides the bus
to Mistaya’s parents. The other children also sometimes go there after school. Mitchell’s
parents picked up the parties’ children from school from time to time. The children have
also ridden their bikes the Mitchell’s parents’ home. Mitchell’s father makes a special effort
to get to all of the children’s sports activities. The parties and their children have
traditionally spent Christmas Eve with Mistaya’s parents and Christmas Day with Mitchell’s
parents.
Mistaya represents that conflict between the parties has caused stress within
the home. She represents that the parties cannot talk without arguing and cannot limit
their conversations to the children. She believes that text messages work best.
9. The parties have the assets listed in Table 1. With the exception of the
parties’ interest in Hoefling Trucking, the parties agree to the values of the assets listed
in Table 1:
3 According to Mitchell, he prefers not to vacation with Mistaya’s parents. Last year, Mistaya and the children accompanied Mistaya’s parents to Paris. Mitchell was invited after Mistaya’s sister backed out of the trip.
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Table 1
Property Market Value Debt Net Value Mistaya Mitchell
Real Estate Home-300 Walnut, Oldebolt, IA $ 46,000.00 $ 24,830.00 $ 21,170.00 $ 21,170.00
Vehicles 2012 Chevy Suburban $ 35,750.00 $ 34,516.00 $ 1,234.00 $ 1,234.00 2006 Ford F250 $ 17,975.00 $ 14,361.22 $ 3,613.78 $ 3,613.78
Household contents Fridge $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Washing Machine $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Kirby Vacuum $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
John Deere lawn mower $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
50” flat screen tv $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Furniture $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Retirement Accounts
Mistaya IPERS $ 12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00
Securites Two shares of Hoefling Trucking $ 47,594.00 $47,594.00 $47,594.00
Total $164,219.00 $ 73,707.22 $90,511.78 $39,304.00 $51,207.78
The parties have agreed to file joint tax returns in 2013. Based on the
financials of Hoefling Trucking LLC, Mistaya opines that each share of Hoefling Trucking
stock has a value of about $40,000. At Mitchell’s request, Ronald Muhlbauer4, a CPA
experienced in business operations and valuations, prepared a balance sheet for Hoefling
Trucking LLC as of July 31, 2013 based on the information provided to him. That balance
sheet indicates a net worth on July 31, 2013 of $1,764. Neither the balance sheet provided
to the bank nor the balance sheet prepared by Muhlbauer attributes any intrinsic value or
good will to the business. In Muhlbauer’s view the only goodwill attributable to the
company “is the ability to transport the commodity in a timely and efficient matter,” which in
his opinion has little or no intrinsic value. In his opinion the value of the business is the
value after liquidation of assets and payment of liabilities. Muhlbauer prepared the July 31,
2013 balance sheet from bank statements, loan documents, and other financial information
provided by Hoeflings, including appraisals he requested Hoeflings to obtain from
Peterbuilt Truck dealers and Wilson truck dealers.
Differences between Muhlbauer’s July 31, 2013 balance sheet and the bank’s
4 Ronald Muhlbauer is not a certified business appraiser.
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
January 12, 2013 balance sheet, includes different equipment values. The January 12,
2013 balance sheet indicates the equipment has a value of $630,500. There was no
evidence as to the basis of that number. The Muhlbauer balance sheet lists the equipment
at the appraised value of $542,500. In addition, the Muhlbauer balance sheet shows
$85,404 more in liabilities than the January 12, 2013 bank balance statement.
Muhlbauer indicated the difference in net worth between his July 2013
balance sheet and the bank’s January 5, 2014 balance sheet was largely explained by the
addition of $74,000 of assets, represented by two Chevrolet pickups that did not appear on
the July 2013 balance sheet, and $68,000 of liabilities, apparently largely accounts
payable, that appear on his July 2013 balance sheet but not on the bank’s January 2014
balance sheet. In Muhlbauer’s opinion, the net worth of the business would not have
increased to $142,782 in six months.
This court values Hoefling Trucking at the time of trial at $142,782. The
January 5, 2014 financial was apparently prepared by Hoefling Trucking with the benefit of
the Muhlbauer balance sheet and with the realization of the February 11, 2014 trial date.
The Court attributes the increase in net worth shown on the January 5, 2014 balance sheet
from that shown on the Muhlbauer balance sheet, to be most likely due to some erroneous
information provided to Muhlbauer by Hoeflings, but also to successful business operations
during the second half of 2013.
10. Mistaya and her father represent that based on Mistaya’s experience in
paying monthly bills she will need about $1200 to $1300 in addition to her salary from
school to meet her monthly expenses. She estimates on her financial statement that her
expenses will be $6450 per month, including $365 for house payment (including insurance
and taxes), $700 for meals and food, $300 for clothing, $1071 for car and transportation
expense (including Suburban payment of $708), $80 for medical and dental expense,
$1591 for utilities and telephone expense, $2200 for other expenses and $143 for student
loans. Her health insurance is provided without cost by her employer and she expects to
cover G.M. through Hawkeye. Mitchell is of the view that Mistaya spends money too freely,
especially when using her credit card. Mitchell has suggested to Mistaya that she replace
the Suburban with a minivan which he believes would substantially reduce her estimated
vehicle expense. Mistaya has no interest; she likes the roominess and safety of the larger
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
vehicle.
11. Mystaya’s father testified he has made loans to Mistaya of $3500 and $6500
for attorney fees and household expenses. Mistaya has incurred attorney fees of
$8197.50. Mitchell represents he too has borrowed the money to pay his attorney.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and of the
parties.
2. Conciliation should be waived.
3. The parties are entitled to the dissolution prayed for in the Petition.
4. “[A] court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, [is to]
order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will
assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional
contact with both parents after the parties have separated . . . and which will encourage
parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical
harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result
from such contact with one parent.” Iowa Code Section 598.41(1)(a).
The parties agree to joint legal custody of the children and this court concurs.
It is in the children’s best interest that the parties have “equal participation in decisions
affecting [their] legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious
instruction.” Iowa Code Section 598.1(3).
The parties also agree that Mistaya should have physical care of the children.
“Physical care means the right and responsibility to maintain a home for the minor child
and provide for the routine care of the child.” Iowa Code Section 598.1(7).
The parties do not agree regarding visitation. Mitchell requests visitation
every other weekend, Wednesday and Thursday nights of each week, alternate holidays
and six weeks each summer beginning on June 1. He wants Wednesdays because of
CCD. Mistaya wants visitation limited to every other weekend, one school night from the
time school gets out until 7:00 p.m., and three weeks of summer visitation. She believes
the children will spend much of his visitation time with his family. Mistaya wants the
children on Christmas Eve when her family traditionally celebrates Christmas, with Mitchell
having the children on Christmas Day; that is the practice that the parties established
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
during the marriage and there is no reason it should not continue. Considering Mitchell’s
relationship with his children during the marriage and his intentions regarding making more
time for his children, Mitchell should have the liberal visitation set forth in this Order.
5. The property subject to equitable division in a dissolution action is generally
the property existing at the time of trial, other than inherited property or gifts received by
one person. Iowa Code Section 598.21(5). It includes premarital property. In re Marriage
of Fennelly and Breckenfelder, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007). Debts as well as assets are
to be equitably divided between the parties. See In re Marriage of Smith, 351 N.W.2d 541,
543 (Iowa App. 1984). Here the parties have debts and the assets set forth in Table 1
subject to equitable division. Iowa Code Section 598.21(5) sets forth the criteria for
adjudicating the equitable distribution of the property. “Although an equal division is not
required, it is generally recognized that equality is often most equitable.” In re Marriage of
Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 683 (Iowa 2005). The assets should be distributed as set
forth in Table 1. Regarding 2013 income taxes, the parties should equally share any tax
refunds and should be equally responsible for any tax liabilities. Regarding debts, Mistaya
should pay her debt to her parents and her student loans. Mitchell should pay his loan to
his parents. To make the distribution of property equitable, Mitchell should pay to Mistaya
the sum of $6951.89 ($5951.89 to equalize the assets and $1000 for Mistaya to apply
toward her loan from her parents for household expenses).
6. The parties agree that Mitchell should continue to maintain health insurance
on the children. The parties should share uncovered medical expenses in accordance with
the child support guidelines.
7. The parties disagree on dependency exemptions. Mitchell requests that he
be awarded all three children as dependents until Mistaya is no longer able to claim G.M.
as a dependent. Mistaya requests that she be awarded the two younger children as
dependents and that Mitchell be awarded V.H. as a dependent so long as he is current on
his support; when V.H. can no longer be claimed as a dependent, she request that she
continue to be able to claim H.H as a dependent and that Mitchell be awarded A.H. so long
as he is current on his support; and when A.H. can no longer be claimed as a dependent,
the parties shall alternate claiming H.H. so long as Mitchell is current on his child support.
At trial she suggested each party claim one of the older children, and alternate the
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
youngest; she indicated she did not care who claimed the youngest in 2014. In this court’s
view the dependency exemptions as most fairly divided as set forth in this order.
8. Mitchell should pay child support in accordance with the following Child
Support Guideline Worksheet:
I. Net Monthly Income of Petitioner, Mitchell Hoefling
[ ] Custodial Parent [X] Noncustodial Parent [ ] Joint Physical Care
Petitioner claims 1 child as tax dependents.
A. Sources and Amounts of Annual Income:
TOTAL: $63,772.76
B. Federal Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income $63,772.76
less 1/2 self-employment (FICA) tax: <0.00>
less federal adjustments to income
less personal exemptions, self plus 1 dependents <7,900.00>
less standard deduction
filing as single <6,200.00>
Net taxable income - federal: $49,672.76
Federal Tax Liability: $8,274.44
Federal Tax Credits <1,000.00>
Final federal tax liability: <7,274.44>
C. State Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income: $63,772.76
less 1/2 self employment (FICA) tax: <0.00>
less federal tax liability (adjusted for dependent tax credit) <7,274.44>
less standard deduction
filing as single <1,920.00>
Net taxable income - state: $54,578.32
State tax liability (tables): $3,231.20
less pers/dep. credits: <80.00>
plus school district surtax (0%) 0.00
less tax credits <0.00>
Final state tax liability: <3,151.20>
D. Social Security and Medicare Tax / Mandatory Pension Deduction: Annual earned income: $63,772.76
Income not subject to FICA: $0.00
Applicable rate (7.65% or 15.3% as adjusted)
Annual Social Security and Medicare tax liability <4,878.62>
E. Other Deductions (Annual): 1. Mandatory occupational license fees: <0.00>
2. Union dues: <0.00>
3. Actual medical support paid pursuant to court order or administrative
order in another order for other children, not the pending matter: <0.00>
4. Prior obligation of child support and spouse support actually
paid pursuant to court or administrative order: <0.00>
5. Deductions for 0 additional qualified dependents: <0.00>
6. Child care expenses: (present action) $0.00
less federal tax credits: <0.00>
less state tax credits: <0.00>
less state tax refund: <0.00>
Net child care expenses: <0.00>
Preliminary Net Annual Income: $48,468.50
Preliminary Average Monthly Income of Petitioner $4,039.04
7. Monthly Cash Medical Support ordered in this pending action $0.00
Adjusted Net Monthly Income of Petitioner $4,039.04
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
II. NET MONTHLY INCOME OF RESPONDENT, Mistaya Hoefling
[X] Custodial Parent [ ] Noncustodial Parent [ ] Joint Physical Care
Respondent claims 2 children as tax dependents.
A. Sources and Amounts of Annual Income:
TOTAL: $41,254.66
B. Federal Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income ($2,395.15 untaxed) $38,859.51
less 1/2 self-employment (FICA) tax <0.00>
less federal adjustments to income
less personal exemptions, self plus 2 dependents <11,850.00>
less standard deduction
filing as head of household <9,100.00>
Net taxable income - federal: $17,909.51
Federal Tax Liability: $2,038.93
Federal Tax Credits for Dependent Children <2,000.00>
Final federal tax liability: <38.93>
C. State Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income: $38,859.51
less 1/2 self employment (FICA) tax: <0.00>
less federal tax liability (adjusted for dependent tax credit) <38.93>
less standard deduction
filing as Head of Household <4,740.00>
Net taxable income - state: $34,080.58
State tax liability (tables): $1,735.12
less pers/dep. credits: <160.00>
plus school district surtax (0%) 0.00
less tax credits <0.00>
Final state tax liability: <1,575.12>
D. Social Security and Medicare Tax / Mandatory Pension Deduction: Annual earned income: $41,254.66
Income not subject to FICA: $0.00
Applicable rate (7.65% wages or 15.3% self-employment as adjusted)
Annual Social Security and Medicare tax liability <3,155.98>
E. Other Deductions (Annual): 1. Mandatory occupational license fees: <0.00>
2. Union dues: <0.00>
3. Actual medical support paid pursuant to court order or administrative
order in another order for other children, not the pending matter: <0.00>
4. Prior obligation of child support and spouse support actually
paid pursuant to court or administrative order: <0.00>
5. Deductions for 1 additional qualified dependents: <3,300.37>
6. Child care expenses: (present action) $0.00
less federal tax credits: <0.00>
less state tax credits: <0.00>
less state tax refund: <0.00>
Net child care expenses: <0.00>
Preliminary Net Annual Income: $33,184.26
Preliminary Average Monthly Income of Respondent $2,765.36
7. Monthly Cash Medical Support ordered in this pending action $0.00
Adjusted Net Monthly Income of Respondent $2,765.36
III. Calculation of the Guideline Amount of Support
Custodial Noncustodial Combined
Parent Parent [ ] Petitioner [X] Petitioner
[X] Respondent [ ] Respondent
A. Adjusted Net Monthly Income $2,765.36 + $4,039.04 = $6,804.40
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
B. Proportional Share of Income 40.6407% + 59.3593% = 100%
C. Number of Children for Whom Support is Sought 3
D. Basic Support Obligation Using Only NCP's
Adjusted Net Monthly Income N/A
E. Basic Support Obligation Using Combined
Adjusted Net Monthly Income $1,968.00
F. Each Parent's Share of the Basic Support Obligation
Using Combined Incomes $799.81 $1,168.19
G. NCP's Basic Support Obligation Before Health Insurance $1,168.19
H. Cost of Child(ren)'s Health Insurance Premium $0.00 $781.23
*Calculation override. Reasonable NCP cost is $265.72
I. Health Insurance Add-On or Deduction From
NCP's Obligation -$317.50
J. Guideline Amount of Child Support for NCP $850.69
V. SPECIAL FINDINGS
A. Income imputed to Respondent:
Income imputed to Petitioner:
B. Estimated income of Respondent:
Estimated income of Petitioner:
C. Deviations made from Child Support Guidelines:
D. Requested amount of child support per month
VI. Changes in Child Support Obligation as Number of Children Entitled to Support Changes (For cases with multiple children based on present income and applicable guidelines
calculation method):
VI. a. Basic Obligation
Number NCP's Basic Health Insurance Extraordinary Guideline
of Support Add-on or Visitation Amount of
Children Obligation Deduction Credit Child Support
2 $1,006.73 -$317.50 $0.00 $689.23
1 $706.38 -$317.50 $0.00 $388.88
8. “Alimony is a stipend to a spouse in lieu of the other spouse’s legal obligation
for support.” In Re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Iowa 1989). Alimony may be
used to remedy the inequities in a marriage and to compensate a spouse who leaves the
marriage at a financial disadvantage. In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 742 (Iowa
1993). Case law in Iowa has recognized three types of alimony: traditional, rehabilitative,
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
and reimbursement. In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179, 184 (Iowa 2004).
Traditional alimony is “payable for life or for so long as a spouse is incapable of self-
support.” Id. Rehabilitative alimony is “a way of supporting an economically dependent
spouse through a limited period of reeducation or retraining following divorce, thereby
creating incentive and opportunity for that spouse to become self-supporting.” Id.
Reimbursement alimony “is predicated upon economic sacrifices made by one spouse
during the marriage that directly enhance the future earning capacity of the other.” In re
Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 64 (Iowa 1989). A court need not designate which
type of alimony it awards and it may award a combination of different types of alimony. In
re Marriage of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822, 827 (Iowa 2008).
Mistaya requests alimony of $750 per month for ten years. She contends
that she needs $1250 (in the form of child support and/or alimony) in addition to her wages
to support herself and the children. Mitchell takes the position that there should be no
alimony award because, in his opinion, she lives beyond what she can afford and that her
income and support is sufficient for her needs.
A court may grant alimony at its discretion after considering “(1) the earning
capacity of each party, and (2) present standard of living and ability to pay balanced
against the relative needs of the other,” (In re Marriage of Estlund, 344 N.W.2d 276,
281(Iowa 1983)), together with relevant factors listed in Iowa Code Section 598.21A
Relevant factors here include “[t]he length of the marriage.” Iowa Code
Section 598.21A(1)(a). The marriage of Mitchell and Mistaya lasted about nine years
before the dissolution petition was filed, a marriage of moderate length. “The age and
physical and emotional health of the parties” (Iowa Code Section 598.21A(1)(b)) are also
relevant factors. Mitchell is 35 years of age and Mistaya is 35 years of age. Both parties
are in generally good physical and emotional health.
Also relevant is “[t]he distribution of the property made pursuant to section
598.21.” Iowa Code Section 598.21A(1)(c). Although alimony and property awards have
different purposes, they are closely related; they are considered together in evaluating their
individual sufficiency. In re Marriage of McFarland, 239 N.W.2d 175 (Iowa 1976); In re
Marriage of Hardy, 539 N.W.2d 729 (Iowa 1995). The amount of alimony “must be
determined in light of all circumstances, including the property settlement.” In re Marriage
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
of Bevers, 326 N.W.2d 896, 900 (Iowa 1982). A “court can properly consider how the
property has been divided in assessing the needs and the resources of the parties in fixing
alimony.” In re Marriage of Sparks, 323 N.W.2d 264, 267 (Iowa App. 1982). Here, each
party has received marital property approximately equal in value. The Court notes that the
award of the Suburban to Mistaya places a substantial debt burden upon her but that is
what she requested. The Court also notes that the property payment will not be sufficient
for her to pay her debt to her parents. Mitchell will leave the marriage with a third interest
in Hoefling trucking, but with debt to Mistaya, debt to his parents, and no place to live.
Finally, it is appropriate here to consider “[t]he earning capacity of the party
seeking maintenance, including educational background, training, employment skills, work
experience, length of absence from the job market, responsibility for children under either
an award of custody or physical care, and the time and expense necessary to acquire
sufficient education or training to enable the party to find appropriate employment, [as well
as t]he feasibility of the party seeking maintenance becoming self-supporting at a standard
of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, and the length of time
necessary to achieve this goal.” Iowa Code Section 598.21A(1)(e & f). Mistaya has a
degree in education. There is no evidence that she wants or needs additional education or
training to have appropriate employment. Although Mistaya has always had primary care
of the children, her marriage did not keep her from the job market. Indeed, for teaching 9
months of the year, she is provided health insurance without cost, the IPERS retirement
program for a pre-tax contribution of $2,395.15, and a taxable income of $38,859.51. Her
taxable income is not significantly less than what the parties earned together prior to 2010
and had available for family expenses. Based on the child support guideline worksheet, it
appears that after payment of taxes, making her IPERS contribution, and obtaining health
insurance, she will have $3616.05 (an adjusted net income of $2765.36 and child support
of $850.69) available to pay her other monthly expenses. With respect to Mitchell’s ability
to pay alimony, it appears that after payment of taxes, he will have $1925.62 (adjusted net
income of $4039.04, less $1262.73 for health and dental insurance and less $850.69 for
child support) available to fund a retirement account and pay his other monthly expenses.
In view of the foregoing, no alimony should be awarded. In this Court’s view
Mistaya does not have a need for alimony and if she desires additional income she can
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
supplement her income with summer employment; she also has the ability to reduce her
expenses by replacing her Suburban with a more economical vehicle. On the other hand,
this court does not believe Mitchell has the financial ability to pay alimony and it appears
that there is little he can do little to alter his financial situation.
9. Court costs are to be equitably apportioned between the parties. Iowa Code
Section 625.3. Attorney fees are not allowed as a matter of right in dissolution cases.
Whether an award is granted depends chiefly on the financial condition and earnings of
both parties, as well as the relative needs and abilities of the parties. In Re Marriage of
Fish, 350 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Iowa App. 1984). Mistaya requests that Mitchell pay the costs
and contribute toward the payment of her attorney fees. Mitchell takes the position that
each party should pay their own fees and one half of the court cost. Considering the
property award herein and the relative incomes, expenses and debts of the parties, each
party should pay one half the costs and their own attorney fees.
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and the parties are restored to
the same rights and privileges as unmarried persons.
2. The parties shall have joint legal custody of their children. Mistaya shall have
physical care of the children. Unless otherwise agreed, Mitchell shall have the following
visitation:
(a) Alternating weekends from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m.
(b) Every Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Thursday; Mitchell shall be
responsible for transporting the children to school.
(c) Four weeks during each summer, commencing June 1, 2014. Mistaya shall
be entitled to have the children for a weekend midway through Mitchell’s
summer visitation with the children
(d) Alternating holidays. During odd numbered years: Easter, Memorial Day,
and Labor Day. Mitchell shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. on
these holidays. Mistaya shall have the children during these times in even
numbered years.
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
During even numbered years: Independence Day and Thanksgiving.
Mitchell shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. on these holidays.
Mistaya shall have the children during these times in odd numbered years.
(e) Christmas: Mistaya shall have visitation from the time school lets out for
Christmas vacation until December 25th at 9:00 a.m. and Mitchell shall have
the children from December 25th at 9:00 a.m. until school resumes.
(f) Father’s day and his birthday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mistaya shall have
the children on Mother’s day and her birthday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
(g) The children’s birthdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in even numbered years;
in even numbered years Mistaya shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. on the day following the children’s birthdays. In odd numbered
years Mitchell shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the day
following the children’s birthdays; in odd number years, Mistaya shall have the
children on their birthdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
(h) The specified days of visitation shall take precedence over the weekend
visitation.
The parties shall share transportation. Unless the parties otherwise agree, and except on
Thursday mornings during the school year, Mitchell shall pick up the children at the
beginning visitation and Mistaya shall pick them up at the conclusion of visitation.
3. Mitchell shall pay monthly child support to Mistaya through the Iowa District
Court for Sac County or the Collection Services Center if appropriate, in the sum of
$850.69 commencing on the 1st day of May, 2014 and on the 1st day of each month
thereafter for so long as Mitchell has a support obligation for three children. Then he shall
pay child support in the sum of $689.23 per month so long as he has a support obligation
for two children. Then he shall pay child support in the sum of $388.88 per month so long
as he has a support obligation for one child. Mitchell’s child support obligation for a child
shall continue until the child reaches 18 years of age, earlier marries, becomes self-
supporting, or dies; however, if the child is attending high school on a full-time basis and
continues to live with Mistaya, the support obligation shall continue until the child’s 19th
birthday. Judgment is hereby rendered against Mitchell for such sums as they shall
become due and payable. The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to support of any
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
child who may be dependent on the parties because of a physical or mental disability.
The parties are advised that Mitchell’s income is for purposes of support
subject to immediate income withholding regardless of whether support payments are in
arrears. Mistaya’s counsel may submit a proposed order.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to post-secondary educational
subsidies for the children until such time as the matter may arise.
So long as the parties can claim three children as dependency exemptions,
Mistaya shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption for V.H. and, in odd
numbered years, the dependency exemption for H.H.; Mitchell shall be entitled to claim the
dependency exemption for A.H. and, in even numbered years, the dependency exemption
for H.H., providing his support obligation is current at the end of the calendar year for which
he seeks to claim the exemption(s). So long as the parties can claim two children as
dependency exemptions, Mistaya shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption for
the younger child and Mitchell shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption for the
older child, providing his support obligation is current at the end of the calendar year for
which he seeks to claim the exemption. So long as the parties can claim one child as a
dependency exemption, Mistaya shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption in
odd numbered years and Mitchell shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption in
even numbered years, providing his support obligation is current at the end of the calendar
year for which he seeks to claim the exemption.
So long as Mitchell has a support obligation for a child he shall provide health
insurance for the child. Mistaya shall pay the first $250 per year per child of uncovered
medical expenses. The balance of uncovered medical expenses shall be paid 59.4% by
Mitchell and 40.6% by Mistaya. “Uncovered medical expenses” means all medical
expenses for the child not paid by insurance. “Medical expenses” shall include, but not be
limited to, costs for reasonably necessary medical, orthodontia, dental treatment, physical
therapy, eye care, including eye glasses or contact lenses, mental health treatment,
substance abuse treatment, prescription drugs, and any other uncovered medical expense.
4. Mistaya is awarded:
A) Marital home at 300 Walnut, Oldebolt, subject to the mortgage
which she shall pay; she shall hold Mitchell harmless on the
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
note secured by the mortgage;
B) 2012 Chevrolet Suburban, subject to the debt thereon which
she shall pay; she shall hold Mitchell harmless on the debt;
C) Fridge, washing machine, Kirby vacuum John Deere lawn
mower, 50” flat screen tv, furniture;
D) IPERS account in her name;
E) All other property in her possession not specifically awarded to
Mitchell.
Mitchell is awarded:
A) 2006 Ford 250, subject to the debt thereon which he shall pay;
he shall hold Mistaya harmless on the debt;
B) All shares and interest in Hoefling Trucking LLC;
C) All other property in his possession not specifically awarded to
Mistaya.
Mitchell shall pay the loan from his parents. Mistaya shall pay the loan from
her parents and her student loans. Any other debt shall be paid by the party incurring the
debt.
Mitchell shall pay to Mistaya the sum of $6951.89 and judgment is entered.
The judgment shall be paid within 90 days. Execution shall not issue prior to 90 days. Any
sum not paid when due shall draw interest at 5 percent per annum.
Mitchell shall remove himself and his belongings from the marital home within
30 days of this Decree.
5. Each party shall do all acts necessary and convenient to effectuate this
decree, including the execution of all appropriate documents.
6. Each party, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 598.22B(1), shall file with the
Clerk of Court or the Child Support Recovery Unit if all support payments are to be directed
to the Collection Services Center as provided in Iowa Code Sections 252B.14(2) and
252B.16, upon entry of this decree, and update as appropriate, the parties’ social security
number, residential and mailing addresses, telephone number, driver’s license number,
and the name, address, and telephone number of the parties’ employer. The information
so filed shall be disclosed and used pursuant to Iowa code Section 598.22B. Pursuant to
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Iowa Code Section 598.22(B)(2), the parties are hereby notified that in any child support
action initiated by the Child Support Recovery Unit or between the parties, upon sufficient
showing that diligent effort has been made to ascertain the location of such a party, the unit
or the court shall deem due process requirements for notice and service of process to be
met with respect to the party, upon delivery of written notice to the most recent residential
or employer address filed with the Clerk of Court or Child Support Recovery Unit.
7. Court costs shall be paid one half by each party.
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Type: OTHER ORDER
Case Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-04-10 13:18:00 page 20 of 20
E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT