IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0093 Filed December 17, 2025
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JENNIFER LEE SATHER AND TIMOTHY JOHN SATHER
Upon the Petition of JENNIFER LEE SATHER, Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning TIMOTHY JOHN SATHER, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Shayne Mayer,
Judge.
A husband appeals the provisions of a temporary order in dissolution of
marriage proceedings. AFFIRMED.
Jamie Hunter of Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines,
for appellant.
Jessica A. Zupp of Zupp & Zupp Law Firm, P.C., Denison, and Michael L.
Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.
Sandy, J., takes no part. 2
GREER, Judge.
Amid dissolution-of-marriage proceedings that began in May 2023, after the
district court entered a second order on temporary matters, Timothy Sather (Tim)
appeals. He argues that the district court’s award to Jennifer Sather for temporary
child support, spousal support, and responsibility for family expenses was
excessive given his reported income. Each party requests an award of their
appellate attorney fees. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm and
decline to award appellate attorney fees.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Once dissolution of marriage proceedings were underway, the parties came
to a temporary agreement in September 2023.1 After a change of counsel and
because of some new circumstances, Jennifer requested a temporary hearing in
these proceedings to address temporary custody of the children, set the child
support obligation, and award spousal support, along with responsibility for
household and personal expenses. In December 2024, the court held a hearing
to address these matters. Only Jennifer and Tim testified, but the district court also
had the advantage of reviewing many exhibits including financial records and an
income analysis report prepared by a financial expert, Matthew Kelderman, a
certified public accountant, whom Jennifer had retained.
Tim owns several businesses in the Iowa Great Lakes area, including Oak
Hill Marina and Oak Hill Outdoor. Tim and Jennifer own several other businesses
1 The parties agreed that “[i]n lieu of child or spousal support, on a temporary basis,
all earnings of the parties shall be deposited into the Northwest bank account . . . for the purposes of paying bills for the parties, and the minor children, including uncovered medical expenses.” 3
jointly.2 Jennifer had worked for the Oak Hill Marina until these proceedings were
underway and her employment was terminated.3 She then started working for a
bank at around $43,000 per year.
Tim argued that his income was $120,000 per year. Kelderman calculated
Tim’s annual income at $447,000 and Jennifer’s at $120,000. Kelderman derived
Tim’s income from the parties’ businesses and Jennifer’s income from her bank
salary, plus investment earnings of $75,000 per year.4 Kelderman stated that in
his “professional opinion that these income amounts are a more accurate depiction
of the actual income of Tim and Jennfer as the total income does not include any
accelerated depreciation, such as bonus depreciation or Section 179 accelerated
depreciation, and attempts to exclude personal expenses from the business.”
After reviewing the Kelderman report, the district court instead averaged
Tim’s income and loss from the years 2019 to 2023 to arrive at an annual income
figure of $381,901 and utilized that number to determine his spousal-support and
child-support obligations. The district court set child support and spousal support,
and required Tim to continue paying several personal living expenses that had
traditionally been paid by the companies for Jennifer and the children’s benefit.
Tim appeals from that temporary order.
2 There were seven businesses named in the documents provided to the district
court, we do not need to list them all here. 3 Jennifer’s employment was terminated at Tim’s request in October 2024 and he
also cancelled the health insurance for her and the children. 4 Kelderman’s rationale for the $75,000 investment income to Jennifer was his
projection that Jennifer would ultimately have investment income on any cash or other assets while Tim would have the benefit of any income or loss from the business entities that he would likely retain. 4
II. Standard of Review.
First, we note that temporary orders related to financial support to the family
are final judgments appealable as a matter of right. See In re Marriage of
Sherwood, 995 N.W.2d 522, 524 n.1, 526 (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). We review matters
involving dissolution of marriage proceedings de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907;
In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). Our review of spousal
support awards is similarly de novo. See In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15,
18 (Iowa 2020). “An appellate court should disturb the district court’s determination
of spousal support only when there has been a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage
of Sokol, 985 N.W.2d 177, 182 (Iowa 2023) (cleaned up). “We give weight to the
factual determinations made by the district court; however, their findings are not
binding upon this court.” Mann, 943 N.W.2d at 18 (cleaned up).
III. Discussion.
A. Determination of Income. Both issues raised by Tim relate to how his
income was determined and what is fair support for Jennifer and for the children.
Tim sets out the following payments he was required to make under the temporary
order for child support and spousal support as:
3,139.48 (child support) 2,600.00 (spousal support) 1,254.00 (Jennifer’s utilities) 2,385.00 (Jennifer’s house payment) 316.00 (Jennifer’s homeowner’s insurance) 1,288.00 (Jennifer’s car payment) 80.00 (Jennifer’s car insurance) Total : $11,062.48
He asserts that these payments are too high and do not take into account his actual
income. Complicating matters, as noted above, it came to light that many of the 5
parties’ personal expenses are paid by the various companies they own. Like the
district court, we find that the challenge is to determine what the income is for
Jennifer and Tim. Much of their financial history is complicated because they have
many businesses, some interrelated, from which they derive income but also from
which many personal expenses are paid. At the temporary-support stage with
minimal testimony, where an hour-long hearing was allowed, the district court can
be at a disadvantage to assimilate a complete and accurate picture of the income
trail.
When questioned about the income reported on the tax returns, Jennifer
noted her “income stated on those returns is not accurate or representative of the
income that [she] actually ha[s] access to to provide care for [her] daughters.”
Here, because of Tim’s self-employment and the historical trend to spend from the
businesses for personal expenses, on our de novo review, we find “we are not
limited to income that is reportable to the federal government as income.” In re
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0093 Filed December 17, 2025
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JENNIFER LEE SATHER AND TIMOTHY JOHN SATHER
Upon the Petition of JENNIFER LEE SATHER, Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning TIMOTHY JOHN SATHER, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Shayne Mayer,
Judge.
A husband appeals the provisions of a temporary order in dissolution of
marriage proceedings. AFFIRMED.
Jamie Hunter of Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines,
for appellant.
Jessica A. Zupp of Zupp & Zupp Law Firm, P.C., Denison, and Michael L.
Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.
Sandy, J., takes no part. 2
GREER, Judge.
Amid dissolution-of-marriage proceedings that began in May 2023, after the
district court entered a second order on temporary matters, Timothy Sather (Tim)
appeals. He argues that the district court’s award to Jennifer Sather for temporary
child support, spousal support, and responsibility for family expenses was
excessive given his reported income. Each party requests an award of their
appellate attorney fees. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm and
decline to award appellate attorney fees.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Once dissolution of marriage proceedings were underway, the parties came
to a temporary agreement in September 2023.1 After a change of counsel and
because of some new circumstances, Jennifer requested a temporary hearing in
these proceedings to address temporary custody of the children, set the child
support obligation, and award spousal support, along with responsibility for
household and personal expenses. In December 2024, the court held a hearing
to address these matters. Only Jennifer and Tim testified, but the district court also
had the advantage of reviewing many exhibits including financial records and an
income analysis report prepared by a financial expert, Matthew Kelderman, a
certified public accountant, whom Jennifer had retained.
Tim owns several businesses in the Iowa Great Lakes area, including Oak
Hill Marina and Oak Hill Outdoor. Tim and Jennifer own several other businesses
1 The parties agreed that “[i]n lieu of child or spousal support, on a temporary basis,
all earnings of the parties shall be deposited into the Northwest bank account . . . for the purposes of paying bills for the parties, and the minor children, including uncovered medical expenses.” 3
jointly.2 Jennifer had worked for the Oak Hill Marina until these proceedings were
underway and her employment was terminated.3 She then started working for a
bank at around $43,000 per year.
Tim argued that his income was $120,000 per year. Kelderman calculated
Tim’s annual income at $447,000 and Jennifer’s at $120,000. Kelderman derived
Tim’s income from the parties’ businesses and Jennifer’s income from her bank
salary, plus investment earnings of $75,000 per year.4 Kelderman stated that in
his “professional opinion that these income amounts are a more accurate depiction
of the actual income of Tim and Jennfer as the total income does not include any
accelerated depreciation, such as bonus depreciation or Section 179 accelerated
depreciation, and attempts to exclude personal expenses from the business.”
After reviewing the Kelderman report, the district court instead averaged
Tim’s income and loss from the years 2019 to 2023 to arrive at an annual income
figure of $381,901 and utilized that number to determine his spousal-support and
child-support obligations. The district court set child support and spousal support,
and required Tim to continue paying several personal living expenses that had
traditionally been paid by the companies for Jennifer and the children’s benefit.
Tim appeals from that temporary order.
2 There were seven businesses named in the documents provided to the district
court, we do not need to list them all here. 3 Jennifer’s employment was terminated at Tim’s request in October 2024 and he
also cancelled the health insurance for her and the children. 4 Kelderman’s rationale for the $75,000 investment income to Jennifer was his
projection that Jennifer would ultimately have investment income on any cash or other assets while Tim would have the benefit of any income or loss from the business entities that he would likely retain. 4
II. Standard of Review.
First, we note that temporary orders related to financial support to the family
are final judgments appealable as a matter of right. See In re Marriage of
Sherwood, 995 N.W.2d 522, 524 n.1, 526 (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). We review matters
involving dissolution of marriage proceedings de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907;
In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). Our review of spousal
support awards is similarly de novo. See In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15,
18 (Iowa 2020). “An appellate court should disturb the district court’s determination
of spousal support only when there has been a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage
of Sokol, 985 N.W.2d 177, 182 (Iowa 2023) (cleaned up). “We give weight to the
factual determinations made by the district court; however, their findings are not
binding upon this court.” Mann, 943 N.W.2d at 18 (cleaned up).
III. Discussion.
A. Determination of Income. Both issues raised by Tim relate to how his
income was determined and what is fair support for Jennifer and for the children.
Tim sets out the following payments he was required to make under the temporary
order for child support and spousal support as:
3,139.48 (child support) 2,600.00 (spousal support) 1,254.00 (Jennifer’s utilities) 2,385.00 (Jennifer’s house payment) 316.00 (Jennifer’s homeowner’s insurance) 1,288.00 (Jennifer’s car payment) 80.00 (Jennifer’s car insurance) Total : $11,062.48
He asserts that these payments are too high and do not take into account his actual
income. Complicating matters, as noted above, it came to light that many of the 5
parties’ personal expenses are paid by the various companies they own. Like the
district court, we find that the challenge is to determine what the income is for
Jennifer and Tim. Much of their financial history is complicated because they have
many businesses, some interrelated, from which they derive income but also from
which many personal expenses are paid. At the temporary-support stage with
minimal testimony, where an hour-long hearing was allowed, the district court can
be at a disadvantage to assimilate a complete and accurate picture of the income
trail.
When questioned about the income reported on the tax returns, Jennifer
noted her “income stated on those returns is not accurate or representative of the
income that [she] actually ha[s] access to to provide care for [her] daughters.”
Here, because of Tim’s self-employment and the historical trend to spend from the
businesses for personal expenses, on our de novo review, we find “we are not
limited to income that is reportable to the federal government as income.” In re
Marriage of Redenius, No. 21-0593, 2022 WL 946206, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 30, 2022) (cleaned up) (providing an extensive list of cases discussing the
difficulties establishing self-employment earnings); In re Marriage of Wiedemann,
402 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987) (“It is not uncommon for an owner to cover many
normal personal living expenses through the corporation or to over-depreciate or
undervalue inventory, all of which would decrease profits while increasing the
owner’s standard of living or the actual value of the company’s assets.”); In re
Marriage of McKamey, 522 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (finding it proper
to allocate amounts taken from a self-employed spouse’s business to his income
when those amounts were taken for personal use). 6
The district court reviewed exhibits that listed personal distributions by Tim
in previous years. Although Tim claimed to have mental-health and physical
issues, as well as cash flow problems with his businesses, the exhibit listed 2023
personal distributions totaling $456,000. Kelderman also considered the personal
expenditures made by the businesses to pay for the post-separation living
expenses for Tim and for Jennifer in arriving at his numbers. And while Tim argues
that the district court used only salary income for Jennifer, during the temporary
stage of the dissolution of marriage proceedings, she does not have access to any
investment earnings.
Even though the district court noted that “[w]ithout a forensic accounting, it
is nearly impossible for the Court to accurately determine Tim’s income with the
limited record a temporary hearing provides,” there was more data available than
simply affidavits and testimony given the detailed financial records submitted. “The
court must determine the parent’s current monthly income from the most reliable
evidence presented.” In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991).
“Where the [parties’] income is subject to substantial fluctuations, it may be
necessary to average the income over a reasonable period when determining the
current monthly income.” Id. Thus, we find the district court’s analysis of income
for the parties to be reasonable after considering the limited information presented
at the temporary hearing. Sherwood, 995 N.W.2d at 526.
B. Child Support Calculation. We find the district court’s determination
of Tim’s income was equitable along with the award for child support. The district
court correctly applied the child support guidelines using the income figures that
we also accept. See In re Marriage of Hilmo, 623 N.W.2d 809, 811 (Iowa 2001) 7
(noting we apply the child support guidelines as the correct determination for a
monthly obligation); see also Iowa Code § 598.21B(2)(c) (2023) (creating a
rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support resulting from application
of the guidelines is the correct amount). We see no reason to disturb the temporary
ruling related to the child support award.
C. Spousal Support Award. As for the spousal support of $2,600 per
month and other expenses Tim was ordered to continue to pay, the parties’ lifestyle
supported that award as both Tim and Jennifer reported monthly expenses
exceeding $14,000, although Tim did not include on his financial affidavit his condo
or vehicle payments, which one of the companies also paid. “In making temporary
orders, the court shall take into consideration the age of the applicant, the physical
and pecuniary condition of the parties, and other matters as are pertinent, which
may be shown by affidavits, as the court may direct.” Iowa Code § 598.11(1). The
district court considered the factors as required under the statute. Historically, the
parties paid many of the personal expenses from the businesses and we see no
reason to modify that practice during the temporary stage of the dissolution
proceedings. Likewise, we do not find that spousal support of $2,600 is
unreasonable given the disparity in income between Tim and Jennifer. See In re
Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 704 (Iowa 2007) (considering comparative
income of the parties to establish proper award of spousal support). In considering
the pecuniary situation of the parties, the district court noted its concern “with
providing Jennifer a reasonable way to maintain her and the children’s standard of
living pending trial and [the court] believe[d] that ordering Tim to continue to 8
provide for the upkeep of the marital expenses in lieu of large monetary monthly
alimony payment, [wa]s the best way to temporarily do this.”
Tim asserted that Jennifer had available to her $2,600 that his uncle
provided the family, but the court rejected that argument as it disagreed that the
funds were available to her. Instead, it ordered Tim to pay that same amount as
spousal support. We also note Tim’s excessive use of company monies during
the pendency of this matter and do not find his arguments about the declining
business cash flow to be persuasive.
In the end, “we will disturb the trial court’s order only when there has been
a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2015)
(cleaned up). We find that the spousal support award, plus the allocation of other
expenses traditionally paid by the businesses, is equitable. We do not disturb the
district court’s ruling on those financial awards.
D. Attorney Fees. Both parties request an award of appellate attorney
fees in this matter. Jennifer presented an affidavit related to attorney fees, but it
was not itemized by activity, so it is difficult to know what amount to award at this
level. So, we decline to award fees at this time. We assume the overall
responsibility for the parties’ attorney fees will be addressed at the time the division
of assets and debts of the parties are resolved below.
IV. Conclusion.
We find the district court’s determination of Tim’s income was reasonable
and that the awards for child support and spousal support were equitable. We
decline to award attorney fees.
AFFIRMED.