In re the Marriage of Agan

Court of Appeals of Iowa

In re the Marriage of Agan

DecidedNovember 7, 2018

Docket17-0678

StatusPublished

This text of In re the Marriage of Agan (In re the Marriage of Agan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Marriage of Agan, (iowactapp 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0678 Filed November 7, 2018

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEPHEN D. AGAN AND JULIANNE M. AGAN

Upon the Petition of STEPHEN D. AGAN, Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

And Concerning JULIANNE M. AGAN, Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Richard B. Clogg,

Judge.

Stephen Agan appeals and Julianne Agan cross-appeals from various

provisions of the decree dissolving their marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Ryan D. Babich and Phillip F. Van Liew of Babich Goldman, PC, Des

Moines, for appellant.

Elisabeth S. Reynoldson of Reynoldson & Van Werden, LLP, Osceola, and

Jane E. Rosien of Flander Rosien, PC, Winterset, for appellee.

Heard by Danilson, C.J., Doyle, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2018). 2

DANILSON, Chief Judge.

Stephen (Steve) Agan appeals and Julianne (Juli) Agan cross-appeals from

various provisions of the decree dissolving their marriage. Steve argues the

dissolution court inequitably valued and divided the marital property. Juli argues

the court erred in valuing the pastureland. Neither party challenges the distribution

of property, rather both raise various issues to support their contention that the

equalization award was inequitable. Steve also requests appellate attorney fees.

Upon our de novo review of the decree, we modify the dissolution decree

to account for various gifted monies and conclude the equalization payment to Juli

from Steve shall be in the amount of $80,000. We do not award appellate attorney

fees.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings.

Steve and Juli began living together in February 2009, and were married on

February 27, 2010. On March 3, 2015, Steve filed a petition for dissolution of

marriage. In June 2015, Juli moved out of the home where the parties had resided

together. The trial was held on November 16-17, 2016, and the decree was filed

on February 27, 2017.

Steve works as a heavy equipment operator with Elder Corporation. Juli

works at Wells Fargo. Steve receives unemployment compensation during his

company’s annual layoff. In addition to his job, Steve raises cattle and serves as

manager of his family’s trust, the Raymond John Agan Trust. As compensation

for his work as manager, Steve is permitted to live in the home owned by the Trust

and to use the adjoining farm buildings and graze the 100 acres of adjoining 3

pasture land. He is not required to pay any rent for the house, buildings, or pasture

land.

Steve’s grandfather gave him five cows in 2000 and fifteen cows in 2001.

Steve purchased a bull before he and Juli were married. At the time of the parties’

2010 marriage, Steve owned twenty-five cows, one bull, and ten to thirteen calves.

One cow and two bulls were purchased during the marriage. Juli took time off

work to assist the veterinarian in working the herd. She was involved in the calving

season, contacting the veterinarian when needed, pulling calves, and bottle

feeding. Both Juli and Steve were involved in the bookkeeping necessitated by

the cattle operation.

During their marriage, Steve and Juli combined their bank accounts. They

both deposited their paychecks into a joint account at Farmer and Merchants State

Bank, which was used both as their personal account and as the farm account to

fund the cattle operation. Juli also deposited the child support she received for her

two children from a prior marriage into this account. The parties also had joint

checking and savings accounts at Union State Bank.

In March 2012, Steve and Juli purchased 36.74 acres of pasture in Madison

County. The funds for the purchase of the real estate ($89,058) came from Steve’s

mother, Mildred Jo Agan (“Jo”). The instrument of conveyance executed when the

real estate was purchased vested title in Steve and Juli as “Joint Tenants with Full

Rights of Survivorship and Not as Tenants in Common.”

During the marriage, Steve and Juli paid for and made substantial

improvements to the pasture land, reconstructing the pond on the land, installing

a fence around the pond, installing an additional stretch of fence, installing tile and 4

waterers, building a small corral, and building a crossing. All of these

improvements were paid for out of the parties’ joint bank account at Farmers and

Merchants State Bank. Until late 2014 when the parties separated, their bank

accounts, real estate taxes, insurance premiums, and all other expenses related

to the real estate were paid out of the parties’ joint Farmers bank account.

Since June 2015, Steve has retained sole and exclusive possession of the

real estate without regard to Juli’s ownership interest. He received and retained

all benefit, enjoyment and income generated from the real estate. Juli received no

compensation or consideration in any form or amount.

By 2015, the cattle herd had grown to sixty-five cows. Steve sells his calves

each year. After filing for divorce, Steve sold nine cows, one bull, and thirty-nine

calves. He did not deposit the proceeds from these sales into any bank account,

he retained over $38,000 cash.

On the date of trial—November 16, 2016—Steve was forty-five and Juli was

forty-six years old, and both parties were in good health. They have no children

together; Steve has no children and Juli has two children from a prior marriage.

Steve’s gross year-to-date income was $42,423, and he anticipated making

another $1000 from Elder Corporation and about $6000 in unemployment

compensation for the year. In addition, he benefits from the free rent and free use

of buildings and pasture for supervising the properties owned by the trust. Juli’s

annual income was about $52,000.

At trial, Steve claimed the livestock were offspring from his premarital gifted

livestock, with the exception of one cow and two bulls. He sought to have all but

the one cow and two bulls set aside as gifted property. He also asserted that the 5

$89,058 his mother provided to purchase the thirty-six acres of farmland as pasture

was a gift to him alone. Further, Steve contended in August 2012, his mother

gifted to him alone $15,150 to purchase a hay rake and hay mower; on July 9,

2013, $16,660 to purchase a hay processer; and in July and August 2013, $11,000

to purchase a Kawasaki all-terrain vehicle (ATV) side-by-side. Steve’s father also

gifted him a boat in 2012 and a 1998 Dodge Dakota in 2013. Steve testified as to

his estimate of the value of farm machinery, vehicles, and other property. He also

testified the value of the pasture land was $2900 per acre.

Juli testified she had performed computer research of various sites she and

Steve had used to purchase the various pieces of farm machinery, and she

presented estimates from those websites as to the current value of the farm

machinery and other items.1 She also testified she had researched the sales of

comparable properties to the pasture land purchased in 2012. She opined the

value was $3800 per acre or $139,600.

Following trial, the district court made findings as to the value of contested

property. The court found, “A fair and reasonable current fair market value of Steve

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI