In Re the Marriage of Kathryn Maria Salisbury and Eric David Salisbury Upon the Petition of Kathryn Maria Salisbury, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee, and Concerning Eric David Salisbury, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant.
This text of In Re the Marriage of Kathryn Maria Salisbury and Eric David Salisbury Upon the Petition of Kathryn Maria Salisbury, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee, and Concerning Eric David Salisbury, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant. (In Re the Marriage of Kathryn Maria Salisbury and Eric David Salisbury Upon the Petition of Kathryn Maria Salisbury, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee, and Concerning Eric David Salisbury, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant.) 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0297 Filed October 15, 2014
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATHRYN MARIA SALISBURY AND ERIC DAVID SALISBURY
Upon the Petition of KATHRYN MARIA SALISBURY, Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
And Concerning ERIC DAVID SALISBURY, Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Kellyann Lekar,
Judge.
The parties appeal and cross-appeal the award of joint physical care of
their minor child. AFFIRMED.
Andrew B. Howie of Hudson, Mallaney, Shindler & Anderson, P.C., West
Des Moines, for appellant.
Jeannine L. Roberts, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2
MCDONALD, J.
Kathryn “Maria” Salisbury appeals from the order entered August 6, 2013,
dissolving the marriage between Maria and Eric Salisbury and subsequent orders
regarding the parties’ respective Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motions.
On appeal, Maria contends the district court erred in awarding the parties joint
physical care of their minor child instead of awarding Maria primary care of the
child. Eric filed an untimely cross-appeal in which he requested primary care of
the child if this court determined joint physical care was not in the child’s best
interests. Eric also requested an award of appellate attorney fees.
We review the district court’s findings and conclusions de novo. See In re
Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Iowa 2009); In re Marriage of Hansen,
733 N.W.2d 683, 690 (Iowa 2007). An award of appellate attorney fees is within
our sound discretion. See Spiker v. Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347, 360 (Iowa 2006).
The parties stipulated to the resolution of most issues related to the dissolution of
their marriage. Trial of this matter focused almost exclusively on the issue of
physical care. The district court’s order dissolving the parties’ marriage and
awarding joint physical care is supported by the record and is well-reasoned, as
are the district court’s orders regarding the parties’ respective rule 1.904(2)
motions. We adopt the district court’s findings and conclusions as our own.
This appeal presents only the application of well-settled rules of law to a
recurring fact situation and a full opinion would not augment or clarify existing
case law. The judgment of the district court is affirmed without further opinion.
See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e). Eric’s cross-appeal is dismissed as 3
untimely. Court costs and fees shall be assessed to Maria. Each party shall be
responsible for their respective attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re the Marriage of Kathryn Maria Salisbury and Eric David Salisbury Upon the Petition of Kathryn Maria Salisbury, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee, and Concerning Eric David Salisbury, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marriage-of-kathryn-maria-salisbury-and-eric-david-salisbury-upon-iowactapp-2014.