Divorce

Divorces, or dissolutions as they are referred to in Iowa, can be messy.  Not only is there an irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship, but also the couple needs to come to an agreement as to the custody of their children, if they had any, and the distribution of their property.  In Iowa, property will be divided according to what the court feels is equitable to both parties.  Equitable distribution is decided by the judge presiding over the dissolution case.  The judge will decide what is fair to both parties based on the facts and circumstances of their specific situation.

In Iowa, Iowa Code 598.21 controls the disposition of property in a dissolution.  Section 5 of 598.21 states the following in regards to property distribution:

 5.  Division of property.  The court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received or expected by one party, equitably between the parties…

Although equitable distribution is meant to be fair to both parties, it does not mean an equal distribution of property.  One party may receive more or less than the other because of a certain fact or circumstance.  In deciding what is fair to the parties, the judge must take certain factors into consideration, which is what the rest of section 5 of Iowa Code 598.21 states:

a.  The length of the marriage.

b.  The property brought to the marriage by each party.

c.  The contribution of each party to the marriage, giving appropriate economic value to each party’s contribution in homemaking and child care services.

d.  The age and physical and emotional health of the parties.

e.  The contribution by one party to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other.

f.  The earning capacity of each party, including educational background, training, employment skills, work experience, length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children, and the time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party to become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.

g.  The desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live in the family home for a reasonable period to the party having custody of the children, or if the parties have joint legal custody, to the party having physical care of the children.

h.  The amount and duration of an order granting support payments to either party pursuant to section 598.21A and whether the property division should be in lieu of such payments.

i.  Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested.  Future interests may be considered, but expectancies or interests arising from inherited or gifted property created under a will or other instrument under which the trustee, trustor, trust protector, or owner has the power to remove the party in question as a beneficiary, shall not be considered.

j.  The tax consequences to each party.

k.  Any written agreement made by the parties concerning property distribution.

l.  The provisions of an antenuptial agreement.

m.  Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case.

Once the judge has considered the factors in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the couple’s situation, he or she will make a ruling as to the distribution of property.

An important consideration in the equitable distribution of property in an Iowa dissolution is the distinction between marital and non-marital property.  Look for more on this distinction here on the Iowa Family Law Bulletin in the coming weeks!

 

Share

Relationships can suffer greatly throughout the process of a divorce.  Obviously, there has already been a breakdown of the original relationship, and while navigating through the court process of the dissolution, happy feelings commonly deteriorate even further.  In cases involving children, emotions are likely to be even more strained.  Many people have issues with how the other spouse is caring for their child(ren), or maybe with the people they are exposing their children to.  Any number of problems can arise when something so important as people’s children are involved – especially when having to deal with one another face to face.

One solution that many are using to get around these testy interactions is technology.  The New York Times recently ran an article addressing this.  Couples, or rather, former couples are using texting, electronic calendars and email to communicate more than ever before.  Communicating electronically can help calm strained relationships by eliminating awkward or even angry run-ins with former spouses or significant others.

However, as the article points out, communicating electronically can also cause problems.  Tone and meaning can be lost when communicating by text or email.  Statements made in a joking or lighthearted manner may become mean-spirited and nasty if read in the wrong light.

Clearly, both positive and negative aspects can result from this new and increased use of technology.  Do you think it should be integrated even more into custody agreements?  Do you think parents should be able to set these communications up on their own, or should they be monitored closely by courts?  Is this a positive or negative development?

Share

Recently, the Iowa Court of Appeals decided a case involving spousal support.  (The court also discussed the award of attorney fees and the husband’s child support obligation.)  The case, In Re the Marriage of Jeffrey A. Richter and Lisa M. Richter, involved a marriage that had produced four children.  The parties had appealed the decree entered in their dissolution, with both parties arguing that the spousal support awarded was incorrect.

Spousal Support in Iowa

The court explains the issue of spousal support in its decision:

Spousal support “is an allowance to the spouse in lieu of the legal obligation for support.” In re Marriage of Sjulin, 431 N.W.2d 773, 775 (Iowa 1988). Spousal support is a discretionary award dependent upon each party’s earning capacity and present standards of living, as well as the ability to pay and the relative need for support. See In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Spousal support “is not an absolute right; an award depends on the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Marriage of Dieger, 584 N.W.2d 567, 570 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).

Factors Considered by the Court in Awarding Spousal Support

The Iowa Code addresses spousal support in Section 598.21(A).  Here, the criteria for determining support are listed.  They are:

  1. The length of the marriage
  2. The age and physical and emotional health of the parties
  3. The distribution of property made in the dissolution
  4. The education level of each party at the time of the marriage and at the time the action is commenced
  5. The earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance
  6. The feasibility of the party seeking maintenance becoming self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage
  7. The tax consequences
  8. Any mutual financial agreements between the parties
  9. Any antenuptial agreement
  10. Other factors the court determines relevant

As the court notes, they give “considerable discretion” to the district court in awarding alimony and will only decide differently than the district court when there has been a failure to do equity.

Spousal Support Decision

In this case, the husband has monthly income of approximately $10,000 and the wife has a monthly income of approximately $3000.  After monthly living expenses are considered, there was a $6000 difference between incomes.  The four children lived with the wife.  The district court decided that since the wife was awarded over $20,000 more in the distribution of property, that it was appropriate to award her less spousal support and for a shorter amount of time.  The court awarded her $2200 per month in traditional alimony for twelve years.

Both parties appealed this decision.  The court of appeals agreed with the district court’s award.

Factors in Determining Spousal Support

As in other cases determining spousal support, or alimony, the court took several of the factors listed in Iowa Code Section into consideration.  In affirming the ruling, the court noted that the marriage lasted twelve years.  The husband had a higher earning capacity than the wife.  There were four children produced during the marriage and the wife was working part-time, which was agreed upon at the time of the birth of their youngest child by both parties.  The wife’s employer provided a letter stating that there would be no full time work opportunities for the wife in the near future.

The court states that the amount of alimony is enough for the wife to continue caring for the children as they were cared for during the marriage and gives her time to become fully employed.

 

 

Share

A case originating in Hamilton County Iowa was recently reviewed and decided by the Iowa Court of Appeals.  In their decision, the court affirmed the decision of the district court to deny the petitioner’s request to modify their dissolution decree.

Case Background

The original divorce decree involved in this case was entered in March of 1999.  The parties, Kevin Arndt and Shanon Green had two children during the course of their marriage, a son and a daughter.  In the decree, the couple agreed to joint legal custody with Shanon retaining physical care of the children.  However, the couple ended up alternating care of the children every two weeks.  Kevin was ordered to pay $300 in support every month in child support.

Modifications of the Dissolution Decree

There were several modifications made to the decree including one increase and one decrease to the amount of support Kevin was ordered to pay.  The modifications were made in 2001 and 2003.  There was also a modification to the custody arrangement of the children.  A second modification in 2003 ordered the couple to alternate care of the children on a weekly basis and neither was required to pay child support.

Shanon petitioned the court again in 2009 to modify the decree so that the physical care of the children be placed with her.  In order to modify the decree, Shanon was required to show a “substantial and material change in circumstances” had occurred.  She alleged that her ex-husband  was not exercising his weeks of childcare, that he had stopped communicating with her, and that he was failing to “properly guide” their son who was involved in delinquency proceedings at the time.

District Court’s Decision Regarding the Modification Petition

By the time the case actually came to trial, the parties had come to the agreement that their son should be placed in the physical care of Kevin, however, could not stipulate to the placement of their 15 year old daughter.  Because of the daughter’s age, her opinion was taken into consideration.  She liked being with her mother during the week because it accommodated her scheduled activities, however, was clear that she preferred being with her father when it did not interfere with her activities.

The District Court ruled that Shanon had not met her burden to establish material and substantial change in circumstances.  Shanon appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Iowa Child Custody Modification Law

 

“Once a physical care arrangement is established, the party seeking to modify it bears a heightened burden, and we will modify the arrangement only for most cogent reasons.”  Dale v. Pearson, 555 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).

There is a high burden to meet if a party wants to modify a decree of the court.  The petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the circumstances since the decree was entered have changed to substantially and materially that the children’s best interests necessitate a change to the decree.  The circumstances necessitating the change to the decree must not have already been considered by the court when the decree was entered and must not be temporary.

If the court decides that this first burden has been met, they will then decide if the petitioning party is able to care more effectively for the child.

Factors to be considered in modifying custody include:

  1. Best interests of the children
  2. Child’s preference (but less weight in modification than in initial custody proceedings)
  3. Siblings should not be separated
  4. Conduct of the custodial parent (including whether the parent encourages and facilitates the child’s relationship with the other parent),including denial of visitation or contact.
  5. Stability for the Child

 

IA Court of Appeals Decision

The court did not find the evidence supported a change in the share care arrangement of the parties.  Shanon failed to show a substantial and material change in circumstances to necessitate a modification to the dissolution decree.  The court did find evidence to support a modification to Kevin’s ordered amount of child support.  Kevin is now ordered to pay $173.13 in support of the two children.

Share

Although I hesitate to provide Kim Kardashian or her family any more attention than they already receive for their multiple television shows and daily media appearances, the divorce between Kim Kardashian and her husband Kris Humphries is a “real life” example of a recent post on Iowa Family Law Bulletin.  Many couples face the situation Kardashian and Humphries are currently experiencing, when only one person in the relationship wants to divorce.

Divorce v. Annulment

Unfortunately for Ms. Kardashian, Mr. Humphries appears to be stalling their divorce.  The couple was married in August of 2011.  Kardashian filed for divorce very soon after.  Kardashian is apparently hoping for a straightforward divorce, while Humphries is claiming that their wedding (which was televised and received much media scrutiny) was a fraud.  The couple had a prenuptial agreement and have no children together.  Arguably, their divorce litigation should not take this long.

Kardashian and her publicity/legal team claim foot-dragging and stall tactics by Humphries, including a strange choice by Humphries to deliver a deposition request to Kardashian’s current boyfriend, Kanye West, rather than the more accepted practice of delivery to his attorney’s office.  However, Humphries’ legal team argues that Kardashian has not produced certain financial records needed to prepare for depositions.

Iowa Annulment Law

In this particular situation, Humphries is requesting an annulment while Kardashian is requesting a divorce.  In Iowa, causes for an annulment are governed by Iowa Code Section 598.29.  This section states that a marriage may be annulled for the following causes:

  1.  Where the marriage between the parties is prohibited by law.
  2. Where either party was impotent at the time of marriage.
  3. Where either party had a husband or wife living at the time of the marriage, provided they have not, with a knowledge of such fact, lived and cohabited together after the death or marriage dissolution of the former spouse of such party.
  4. Where either party was a ward under a guardianship and was found by the court to lack the capacity to contract a valid marriage.

Fraud as a Cause for Annulment

Unfortunately, there is not much being reported on the specific legal argument Mr. Humphries is relying upon, however, it seems that he believes he was used by Kardashian for television ratings.  Kardashian says that she married Humphries for love, however, got “caught up in the hoopla.”

A trial is not expected in the case until next year, and it does not appear that a settlement is likely at this point.  One thing is certain – when and if there is a trial, there will be no lack of media coverage!

Share

An editorial  in the Huffington Post, written by Micki McWade, a Collaborative Divorce Coach, Psychotherapist, Author and Parent Educator and Collaborative Trainer, addresses the issue of when one spouse has the desire to obtain a divorce and the other does not.  McWade suggests that only very rarely are divorces mutual decisions made by couples, and that it is much more likely that one person in the relationship desires a change.  The degree to which the non-consenting spouse resists can vary greatly however.

When one spouse wants to slow the divorce process, there are many avenues they can use to do so, however, all will most likely cause legal fees to skyrocket and their marital resources to diminish.  If there are children involved, this can cost them more than their financial security, but also their children’s.  It may also cause much more animosity throughout the divorce process which would also be unfortunate for any children involved.

Salvaging a Relationship Gone Bad

In her article, McWade addresses many of the emotional issues that are involved in a relationship where one party wants to divorce and the other does not.  She believes that if one party has already decided they want to divorce and do not want to make efforts to salvage the relationship, there is very little the other spouse can do to change their minds.  McWade suggests that the divorce-minded party may have already been in the divorce “state of mind” for a length of time.  Although the idea of a divorce may be shocking or overwhelming to the other party, it may be long overdue for the initiating spouse.

Iowa Divorce (Dissolution) Law

Iowa Divorce Conciliation Efforts and Waiting Periods

In her article, McWade also touches upon something that is reflected in Iowa divorce (or officially called, dissolution) law.  Even if one party resists in a divorce, if the other party desires a divorce, they will receive one.  In Iowa, a judge may require parties to participate in conciliation efforts for sixty days.  Also, there is a waiting period of ninety days between the initial dissolution petition and when the court can enter a final dissolution decree.  Although there are circumstances that allow a judge to waive the waiting period, it is generally enforced.

Iowa No-Fault Divorce

Additionally, Iowa is a “no-fault” divorce state.  This means that a spouse who wishes to obtain a divorce has no requirement to blame their spouse for any wrongdoing.  This allows the divorce to be (hopefully) less contentious and be completed more quickly.  This does not mean issues of wrongdoing will not arise in the divorce, especially if child custody issues are involved, however, it does mean that the petitioning party does not have to “accuse” their spouse of anything specific to obtain a divorce.

Share

Clint Nass has appealed the decision of the Iowa District Court for Bremer County (in In Re the Marriage of Noel Ann Nass and Clint Lewis Nass) in regards to the physical care provision of the dissolution decree.  It is clear, from the Iowa Court of Appeal’s comments, that this divorce was filled with a fair amount of animosity.

The couple originally met when Noel was a senior in high school and Clint was 26 years old.  They shared a common bond of enjoying horseback riding.  After marrying in 2005, the couple opened a pet store.

Unfortunately, Clint and Noel experienced some troubling times in the next few years.  They suffered from the loss of their infant son shortly after his birth, as well as the birth of another premature baby.  Both the pet store the couple opened and their home were destroyed by a flood of the Cedar River in 2008.  They were forced to live in a garage with their 9 month old son.

Joint Legal Custody and Sole Physical Custody Awarded

Eventually, by working side and part time jobs, the couple was able to move to an acreage and have a home once again.  By the fall of 2009 however, the couple had separated.  Noel took primary care of the children because of the work schedule Clint chose at his employer, John Deere, 3rd shift (10:30pm to 7:00am).  He did, apparently, have a choice in the hours he worked.

The divorce trial lasted three days and resulted in the parties having joint legal custody of the children and Noel having physical care, with liberal visitation for Clint.  This decision is in keeping with Iowa child custody law.

Iowa law requires that the court, “insofar as is reasonable and in the best interests of the child,” shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated and dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent.

Affirmation of Lower Court’s Child Custody Decision

In its analysis, the Court of Appeals dispenses quickly with any question of the lower court’s placement of physical care of the children, saying “she, quite simply, can minister more effectively to the long-range best interests of the children.”  In stating this however, the court of course considered the relevant factors from In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67.  The court made clear that it was “abundantly clear” that Noel had been the primary caregiver, even after the devastating loss of her first child, their business, and their home.  Clint’s time with the children was very limited even when they were in his care.  His mother, the children’s paternal grandmother, often cared for the children as a result of the work schedule Clint chose to maintain.

Throughout the divorce, Clint has refused to converse directly with Noel.  Despite this, Noel has continued to attempt to provide the children with quality time with their father.  This is important to the court, as they must consider  which parent will encourage the most contact by the noncustodial parent with the children in Iowa.  The court notes that Noel has cooperated with Clint under very trying circumstances and that Clint’s interest in the children did not arise until after the couple’s separation and “even then was continually diluted by his other, selfish interests.”

The court affirms, and wholeheartedly at that it seems, the decision of the lower court to have physical care of the children remain with Noel despite Clint’s arguments.  Noel was also awarded appellate attorney fees of $1500.

Share

The Iowa Court of Appeals recently decided a case that involves several points including child custody, visitation and support.  The case is brought on appeal by Daniel Moyer from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County.  Daniel and his ex-wife Ashley Moyer were married in March of 2008 and had previously had a son, Gabriel, born in July 2006.   They divorced in June of 2010.  All of the issues were decided and included in the couple’s dissolution of marriage decree.

 In Re the Marriage of Ashley Moyer and Daniel Moyer

The couple lived with Dan’s parents rent and expense free while Ashley was pregnant with their child and after the birth when married.  The court finds that although living with Dan’s parents, both Dan and Ashley were ambitious and industrious.  Dan went to school for an associate’s degree in math while Ashley took care of their child and eventually attended culinary school and worked in food service.

When Dan and Ashley separated, Ashley moved out of her in-law’s home with Gabriel, however, Dan continued to care for Gabriel at night while Ashley worked.  Approximately a year later, Dan moved to Laramie, Wyoming to pursue a degree in petroleum engineering at the University of Wyoming.  He lived with his girlfriend and her child.  Ashley continued to live and work in Council Bluffs.

The divorce decree, entered August 23, 2011, granted physical care to Ashley with Dan receiving visitation when he is in Iowa, along with 6 weeks of visitation in the summer and over the Christmas holidays.  Dan was ordered to pay $195.13 per month in child support.  Soon after the decree was entered, Dan filed a combined motion for new trial, expanded findings, and interpretation.

 Court of Appeals Reviews District Court’s Child Custody, Visitation and Support Decision

 Child Custody

The Court reviews child custody decisions de novo, meaning they examine the entire record and make new judgments on each issue presented.  They will give strong consideration to the district court’s findings of fact.

In favor of his being granted child custody, Dan argues that he is the more stable parent, he had been the primary caregiver, the proximity of Gabriel to his grandparents was relied too heavily upon by the district court, and that Ashley disregards his role as a parent.  The court views all of these arguments in the light of what is in the best interest of the child.  The factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2009) guide the court:

 

3.  In considering what custody arrangement under subsection 2 is in the best interest of the minor child, the court shall consider the following factors:

 

a.  Whether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child.

b.  Whether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the child will suffer due to lack of active contact with and attention from both parents.

c.  Whether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs.

d.  Whether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since the separation.

e.  Whether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

f.  Whether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity.

g.  Whether one or both the parents agree or are opposed to joint custody.

h.  The geographic proximity of the parents.

i.  Whether the safety of the child, other children, or the other parent will be jeopardized by the awarding of joint custody or by unsupervised or unrestricted visitation.

j.  Whether a history of domestic abuse, as defined in section 236.2, exists.  In determining whether a history of domestic abuse exists, the court’s consideration shall include, but is not limited to, commencement of an action pursuant to section 236.3, the issuance of a protective order against the parent or the issuance of a court order or consent agreement pursuant to section 236.5, the issuance of an emergency order pursuant to section 236.6, the holding of a parent in contempt pursuant to section 664A.7, the response of a peace officer to the scene of alleged domestic abuse or the arrest of a parent following response to a report of alleged domestic abuse, or a conviction for domestic abuse assault pursuant to section 708.2A.

In regards to being the more stable parent, the court finds nothing with regard to Ashley’s employment or living situation that would hamper her ability to care for Gabriel.  In fact, they agree with the district court’s determination that Ashley actually provides the more stable environment that includes Gabriel’s grandparents.

The court also rules in Ashley’s favor in regards to the question of who was Gabriel’s primary caregiver.  The court finds that both parties are capable of caring for the child.  At trial, Ashley testified that she was in fact the primary caregiver and Dan agreed.

Dan’s argument that the district court relied too heavily upon the proximity of Gabriel to his grandparents also did not survive.  The court discusses the fact that Dan could have chosen to attend school at a University only 3 hours away that offers the same program that he is enrolled in at the University of Wyoming.  They find that although Ashley’s plans may change, at the present time, she is planning to remain in Council Bluffs near Gabriel’s extended family.  The court does not believe that the district court placed too much importance on this factor.

Finally, the court finds that although Ashley could have made better efforts at communication on certain issues with Dan, Ashley and Dan have actually been able to work together in the past.  The minor communication glitches do not warrant a finding that Ashley disregards Dan’s role as parent.

Overall, the court of appeals agrees with the district court that it is in the child’s best interest to place physical care of Gabriel with Ashley.  They mention that Dan’s decision to attend school 8 hours away from his extended family tipped the balance in favor of Ashley.

Child Visitation

Just as with child custody, the child’s best interest is the main consideration of the court when ruling on visitation.  Iowa Code section 598.41(1) guides their decision:

598.41  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.

1. a.  The court may provide for joint custody of the child by the parties.  The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall 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 parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, 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.

Dan argues that the visitation schedule in the decree fails to maximize contact with both parents.  He requests additional visitation in his appeal.  He also asks for improved telephonic and electronic communication with Gabriel.  Dan also complains that the burdens of travel are placed on him.

In order to provide maximum contact with both parents, the court modifies the decree so Dan receives additional visitation during Thanksgiving and Spring Breaks.  The court also agrees that it would be fair for Ashley to have to share in the expense of Dan traveling to see Gabriel in limited circumstances.

 Child Support

The final issue the court considers is the amount of child support Dan is required to pay.  In Iowa, child support is determined by guidelines set forward by the Iowa Supreme Court.  The court determines both parent’s monthly income to arrive at the amount of child support owed.  The court decides that Dan is capable of working part time despite his demanding school schedule and that the student loans he voluntarily took out may be applied to his monthly income.  The court requires Dan to pay $195.13 in child support.

Share

Actress Katie Holmes filed for divorce from her husband of 5 years, Tom Cruise, last Thursday.   The pair met and married quickly and have been the subject of Hollywood speculation for the duration of their relationship.  Holmes, 33, has one 6 year old daughter, Suri, with Cruise.  Cruise has two adopted children from a previous marriage with actress Nicole Kidman.  It has been reported that Cruise was surprised to learn of Holmes’ filing.  This is the end of Cruise’s 3rd marriage, while Holmes’ first.

Fault vs. No Fault Divorce

Holmes filed for divorce in the state of New York.  There has been much speculation as to her motivation for filing in a “fault” divorce state.  In New York and other states that allow a petitioner to file for divorce on fault-based grounds.  In New York, you may file for a fault-based divorce based on several  grounds:

  • Cruel and Inhuman Treatment
    • Physical, verbal or emotional abuse that endangers your physical or mental well being.
    • The judge will look for occurrences in the last 5 years.
  • Abandonment
    • Your spouse must have abandoned you for a period of one or more years.
    • “Constructive Abandonment” is applicable if your spouse has refused to engage in sexual relations with you for a period of at least one year.
  • Three Consecutive Year Imprisonment
    • The imprisonment must begin after the marriage and last for a period of 3 consecutive years.
  • Adultery
    • Must be able to show that your spouse committed adultery during the marriage, which can prove to be difficult.

In Holmes’ and Cruise’s case, there is, of course, much speculation as to why Holmes would have filed in New York.  Many believe that Cruise’s intense commitment to Scientology may have played a role in their split.  In the petition, Holmes has claimed that the couple is unable to continue the marriage because of irreconcilable differences.  Cruise is expected to file a response in New York requesting the proceedings be moved to California.

Cruise and Holmes have a pre-nuptial agreement, so financial considerations will most likely not be a major issue in their divorce.  Holmes could challenge the agreement, however, the main issue will almost certainly be custody of their daughter.  Holmes has filed for sole custody of Suri along with an “appropriate” child support amount.

Iowa:  a No Fault Divorce State

Iowa is considered a no-fault divorce state.  The Iowa Code addresses dissolution of marriage in Chapter 598.

Officially called “dissolution of marriage” in Iowa, a divorce will be granted when there is evidence of a breakdown of the relationship with no likelihood it can be preserved.  There is no requirement for a spouse to place blame on the other spouse.  After filing for dissolution, a judge may require the couple to participate in conciliation efforts for a period of up to 60 days.  For example, Polk county requires the couple to participate in mediation.  Iowa Code section 598.7 addresses this requirement.  Also, there is a 90 day waiting period in Iowa from the time of filing until a judge can issue a final decree, although this requirement may be waived under certain circumstances.

It remains to be seen just how nasty Tom Cruise and Katie Holme’s divorce will be, however, we can be assured that whatever happens, there will be intense media coverage of every detail!

Share

Witherspoon Bigamy Case Developments

As previously blogged about here on the Iowa Family Law Bulletin, actress Reese Witherspoon’s mother, Betty Witherspoon, has petitioned a Tennessee court to annul a marriage between her husband of 42 years and his new wife, Tricianne Taylor.  Betty and John Witherspoon separated in the mid 1990′s, however, have remained in contact with one another, even attending family events together.  They are not divorced.

Family Concerns for John Witherspoon

Betty and the Witherspoon children, including Reese Witherspoon, appear to be very concerned with John’s mental state claiming that he suffers from dementia and alcoholism.  They claim that Witherspoon’s new wife is taking advantage of him by applying for loans and apparently making changes to his will.  John reportedly told Betty that he did not remember marrying Tricianne.  John Witherspoon is in a conservatorship, but apparently, this has not prevented Tricianne Taylor from allegedly becoming a part of John’s financial life.  Tricianne strongly denies the accusations made against her.

Judge Appoints Lawyer to Conduct Investigation

A new development  occurred in the case when a Tennessee judge appointed a lawyer to investigate the events in John’s life that Betty and the rest of the Witherspoon family are alleging.  The hearing scheduled for later this week has been indefinitely postponed.

Media Petitions Court for Access

Reese has been attending court hearings with her father, however, the judge in the case has barred all media presence in the courtroom.  However, a local television station has petitioned the court to unseal the filings in the case and make all future filings and hearings accessible by the media.  This motion has been set for hearing on June 25, 2012.

Share