Iowa Code § 598.21

Section 598.21(1) calls for an equitable division of marital property based on specified factors.

In Re the Marriage of Giles · filed 1983-08-30(1)

The division of property pursuant to a dissolution of marriage is governed by Iowa Code § 598.21(1). That section codifies prior Iowa case law which held that marital property is to be divided equitably between the parties, taking into account certain specified factors.

Section 598.21(2) permits gifted property to be considered in the property division when the length of the marriage and the other spouse’s years caring for the children make exclusion inequitable.

In Re the Marriage of Mentel · filed 1984-10-23(2)

This is a marriage of long duration. Maryetta absented herself from the job market for many years to care for the couple’s nine children. David was therefore able to continue in his long-term employment with a feed company and the resulting good fortune of obtaining the stock. These factors mitigate toward division of the stock, and we affirm the trial court’s consideration of the stock in the property division.

Section 598.21(1) permits courts dividing marital property to consider transfers of assets in violation of court orders and abuses of discovery, in addition to its listed factors.

In Re the Marriage of Williams · filed 1988-01-27(1)

In making an equitable division of the parties' property, we consider transfers of assets in violation of court orders and discovery abuses in addition to the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.21(1).

Section 598.21(1)(k) does not treat a property list prepared by one spouse and never agreed to by the other as a written agreement concerning property distribution.

In Re the Marriage of Weidner · filed 1983-09-21(1)(k)

He argues that among the factors the trial court is statutorily required to consider is “any written agreement made by the parties concerning property distribution.” Iowa Code § 598.-21(l)(k) (1983). That code section is not here controlling because the evidence does not establish that Exhibit “9” was such an agreement. The evidence shows rather that Exhibit “9” is simply a list of items prepared by Marvin but never finally agreed upon by Betsy.

Under § 598.21(1), equity governs property division, and money placed in a joint account and spent on family debts need not be set aside for one spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Athy · filed 1988-09-19(1)

Iowa courts apply a standard of equity in determining economic distribution in dissolution cases. ... The money has been spent in the exercise of fulfilling the parties’ responsibility to provide for the family unit. Kenneth has received full benefit of the use of this money in discharging this responsibility. To set aside this sum for Kenneth would give rise to an inequitable result.

Section 598.21(1) permits a court to set interest on a property distribution award below the statutory judgment rate when equity warrants it.

In re the Marriage of Pertzsch · filed 1989-11-27(1)

Second, Iowa Code section 598.21(1) mandates that the district court shall equitably divide all property between the parties. Pursuant to that objective, we have permitted awards which do not bear interest. ... Similarly, we believe that courts may award interest on property distribution awards less than that called for in Iowa Code section 535.3 if equity so dictates.

Section 598.21(1) permits a court to set aside marital property for children when circumstances warrant protecting them or promoting their best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Richards · filed 1989-02-23(1)

The statutes only give the court discretion to set a fund aside to protect the children or to promote their best interests when the circumstances warrant such a disposition. Finding no justification in this case, we affirm the award of one-half of the AMCAP fund to each party, but modify the order by deleting the trial court’s restriction that the AMCAP mutual fund be held jointly for use as a primary resource for the payment of post-high school education costs.

Section 598.21(1) supplies Iowa’s equitable distribution rules after spouses’ personal property is characterized under the law of another state.

In Re the Marriage of Whelchel · filed 1991-08-27(1)

However, once the property was characterized, the trial court should have applied Iowa law in dividing the property. Under the circumstances of this, case, the two states’ laws are not in apparent conflict on the issue of property division. Once the property has been characterized as marital or community property, both states’ laws provide for equitable distribution of the property.

Section 598.21(3) makes the distribution of property a factor in setting spousal support.

In Re the Marriage of Branstetter · filed 1993-11-24(3)

This is particularly so in view of the fact that the property division gave her a share of Daniel’s pension, and it is appropriate to consider the property division when the court sets alimony.

Section 598.21(1)(k) requires courts to consider written property distribution agreements, but does not make a repudiated stipulation binding on the court.

In Re the Marriage of Hansen · filed 1990-12-27(1)(k)

It is apparent, therefore, the statute is not intended to require a stipulation or agreement of the parties as to the distribution of property is to be enforced as a binding agreement on such distribution. To the extent the court held the distribution contained in the agreement was binding upon Donna, and upon that ground, granted judgment, the court was in error.

Section 598.21(8)’s substantial-change-of-circumstances standard does not apply to modifications of property divisions.

Kleinsmith v. Northwest Bank & Trust Co. · filed 1991-11-20(8)

Because the substantial-change-of-circumstances grounds for modification under section 598.21(8) do not apply to property divisions, modification of a property division may be made only on grounds “as would justify the setting aside or changing a decree in any other case.”

Section 598.21(1) requires an equitable property division, which need not be equal but must be fair under the facts of the case.

In Re the Marriage of Huisman · filed 1995-03-30(1)

There need not be an equal or percentage distribution but the award must be fair under the facts of the case.

Section 598.21(1)(m) does not make a spouse’s payment of expected, court-ordered obligations from prior marriages a relevant factor for dividing marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Burgess · filed 1997-06-26(1)(m)

We agree with James the district court erred in dividing the property by considering his court-ordered obligations from his prior marriages. The depletion of marital assets by a spouse to satisfy this obligation is not a relevant factor to consider in dividing the property.

Section 598.21(1)(m) makes a party’s ability to meet obligations imposed by a dissolution decree relevant to an equitable division of property.

In Re the Marriage of Siglin · filed 1996-09-30(1)(m)

The ability of a party to meet the financial obligations imposed by a dissolution decree is a relevant factor to consider in determining an equitable division of property. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(m) (1995).

Section 598.21(1)(h) does not require temporary support payments to be credited against a spouse’s property award when the payments covered subsistence and that spouse used separate property to meet marital obligations.

In Re Marriage of Gonzalez · filed 1997-01-29(1)(h)

We disagree. These funds were intended to provide for Ileana’s subsistence. She was required to expend nonmari-tal property to meet marital obligations. It would be inequitable to adjust her award of marital property as Fritz demands.

Section 598.21(1) permits courts to consider a spouse’s waste of marital assets when making an equitable property distribution.

In Re the Marriage of Bell · filed 1998-01-28(1)

Further, the property distribution should be made pursuant to the criteria codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (1995). ... Conduct of a spouse which results in loss or disposal of property otherwise subject to division at the time of divorce may be considered in making an equitable distribution of property.

Section 598.21(1) authorizes division of property only upon dissolution of a marriage; it gives courts no authority to divide property of unmarried persons.

In Re the Marriage of Martin · filed 2004-06-16(1)

However, the power of the court to divide property under laws relating to the dissolution of a marriage exists only in the event a marriage is dissolved.

Section 598.21(1) treats cost-of-living increases accruing after dissolution as marital property when the employee spouse was retired at trial.

In Re the Marriage of Duggan · filed 2003-04-02(1)

Thus, we hold cost-of-living adjustments accruing postdissolution should be treated as marital property where the employee-spouse is retired at the time of trial.

Section 598.21(1) includes workers’ compensation benefits received and retained before dissolution in the divisible estate, while benefits received after divorce are the injured spouse’s separate property.

In Re the Marriage of Schriner · filed 2005-04-29(1)

Consistent with McNemey, and our statutory distribution scheme, we hold that workers’ compensation benefits received up to the time of the dissolution are property subject to an equitable division to the extent they have been retained and not spent. Benefits received after the divorce constitute separate property of the injured spouse.

Section 598.21(1) governs division of property between the parties to a dissolution; a dissolution decree or stipulation does not convey land to a nonparty.

Bobby D. Martin, Sr. Vs. Martin II · filed 2006-08-18(1)

Although a decree for dissolution of marriage may constitute a muniment of title, a dissolution decree, or a stipulation, cannot be viewed as a conveyance of land to a nonparty to the dissolution of marriage. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (court required to divide property of the parties in a dissolution decree and transfer title of the property by such means as ordering the parties to execute a quitclaim deed or ordering a change of title for tax purposes and delivery of the deed or change of title to the county recorder).

Section 598.21(1) subjects premarital and marital property to equitable division except gifts and inherited property.

In Re The Marriage Of Michele Renee Fennelly And Ted Ernst Breckenfelder Upon The Petition Of Michele Renee Fennelly · filed 2007-07-20(1)

Property may be “marital” or “premarital,” but it is all subject to division except for gifts and inherited property.

Section 598.21(5) directs courts to consider its criteria when distributing marital property equitably.

In Re the Marriage of Hazen · filed 2009-10-21(5)

The distribution of the property should be made in consideration of the criteria codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (Supp.2007).

Section 598.21(7) bars modification of property divisions in a final dissolution decree.

In Re the Marriage of Brown · filed 2009-12-18(7)

According to Iowa Code section 598.21(7), property divisions made in a divorce decree are not subject to modification.

Section 598.21(7) generally bars modification of a property division, but the court may interpret and enforce its prior decree.

In RE the Marriage of Kathryn June Morris and Dennis Eugene Morris Upon the Petition of Kathryn June Morris · filed 2012-02-17(7)

We agree that a property division generally is not modifiable. Iowa Code § 598.21(7) (2011). Nevertheless, the district court retains authority to interpret and enforce its prior decree.

Section 598.21(5) directs courts to divide marital property equitably under its listed factors, without requiring an equal division.

In RE the Marriage of Diana L. Kimbro and Steven C. Kimbro Upon the Petition of Diana L. Kimbro · filed 2013-02-08(5)

Such an outcome conflicts with our equitable principles in Iowa Code section 598.21(5), which guides courts in framing property distributions. An equitable distribution of marital property, based upon the factors in 598.21(5), does not require an equal division of assets.

Section 598.21 calls for equitable division of property at divorce under its enumerated factors and other relevant circumstances.

United States v. Schippers · filed 2013-11-01

The second task is to divide that property in an equitable manner according to the enumerated factors in Iowa Code § 598.21, as well as other relevant factors determined by the court in a particular case.

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable division of property based on the circumstances and listed factors; an equal division is not required.

In Re the Marriage of Katherine J. McGuire-little and Keith R. Little Upon the Petition of Katherine J. McGuire-little, · filed 2014-08-13(5)

In the dissolution decree, the district court is to divide the property of the parties equitably. Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (2013) (listing factors the court is to consider when dividing the assets and debts of the parties). What is equitable depends upon the unique circumstances of each case. In re Marriage of Callenius, 309 N.W.2d 510, 515 (Iowa 1981). Though equality is most often equitable, it is not required. In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Iowa 2007).

Section 598.21(5) allows an unequal division of marital property when its factors make that division equitable.

In Re the Marriage of Jack Lynn Lukowicz and Lynn Edna Lukowicz Upon the Petition of Jack Lynn Lukowicz, and Concerning · filed 2015-01-14(5)

Iowa courts strive to divide marital property equitably between divorcing spouses based on the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (2011). But an equitable division is not necessarily an equal division. ... In this case, the district court—after assessing the relative credibility of both parties—found the other factors in section 598.21(5) to be more compelling. In doing so, the district court achieved substantial equity between the parties.

Section 598.21(1) requires a dissolution decree to divide the parties’ property at the same time and prohibits postponing that division to a later judgment.

In Re the Marriage of Susan Michelle Thatcher and Ronald Dean Thatcher Upon the Petition of Susan Michelle Thatcher, Ann · filed 2015-06-05(1)

For the reasons explained below, we hold section 598.21(1) requires the decree of dissolution to divide the property at the same time, which prohibits bifurcated divorces.

Section 598.21(1) requires the court to divide marital property when it enters the dissolution decree, prohibiting a decree that reserves property division for later.

Amended July 31, 2015 In RE the Marriage of Susan Michelle Thatcher and Ronald Dean Thatcher Upon the Petition of Susan · filed 2015-06-05(1)

For the reasons explained below, we hold section 598.21(1) requires the decree of dissolution to divide the property at the same time, which prohibits bifurcated divorces.

Section 598.21(5) permits a court dividing property equitably to set aside a spouse’s premarital payments on an asset when the circumstances, including a short marriage, support that treatment.

In Re the Marriage of Jill R. Miller and Shawn W. Miller Upon the Petition of Jill R. Miller, petitioner-appellee/cross- · filed 2015-06-24(5)

Shawn testified he made $7455 in payments on the Tundra prior to the marriage. The trial court set this value aside to Shawn. We do not find this inequitable under the circumstances of this short-term marriage.

Section 598.21(6) does not require division of property gifted to one spouse merely because that spouse later added the other spouse to the title for inheritance purposes.

In Re the Marriage of Kimberley Sue Baker and Randall Lee Baker Upon the Petition of Kimberley Sue Baker, and Concerning · filed 2015-07-09(6)

We find Randall intended Kim to become owner of the house only in the event of his death. Randall testified he wanted to be sure she had somewhere to live if something happened to him, but he did not consult an attorney before making Kim a joint tenant. The property should not be divided simply because Kim’s name appears on the title.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of gifted property when refusing to divide it would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Steven Ross Haecker and Karen T. Blomme Upon the Petition of Steven Ross Haecker, and Concerning K · filed 2015-08-05(6)

But even if it was a gift, equity does not support setting it aside to him or assigning it the value he proposes. See Iowa Code § 598.21(6) (permitting division of gifted property if “refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party”).

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable division of marital property based on its listed factors; equitable division need not be equal.

In Re the Marriage of James R. Shovar and Christina A. Shovar Upon the Petition of James R. Shovar, and Concerning Chris · filed 2015-08-19(5)

Iowa courts strive to divide marital property equitably between divorcing spouses based on the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.21(5). But an equitable division is not necessarily an equal division.

Section 598.21(7) generally prevents modification of a property division, but permits a QDRO to be changed to conform to the division in the dissolution decree.

In Re the Marriage of Joseph Vincent Colarusso and Karyl Jean Colarusso Upon the Petition of Joseph Vincent Colarusso, a · filed 2015-12-09(7)

If Karyl was requesting a modification of the property division, we would agree because a property division generally is not modifiable. See In re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880, 886 (Iowa 2012); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(7) (2013). But the import of Karyl’s request is not for modification of the property division. She is asking that the QDRO be modified to conform to the property division as provided in the decree.

Section 598.21(7) bars modification of a property division, but permits amendment of a QDRO to conform to the property division in the dissolution decree.

In Re the Marriage of Julia Heath-Clark and Richard Alan Clark Upon the Petition of Julia Heath-Clark, and Concerning Ri · filed 2016-05-11(7)

If Richard were requesting a modification of the property division, we would agree because a property division generally is not modifiable. See In re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880, 886 (Iowa 2012); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(7) (2013). But Richard’s request is not for modification of the property division. He is asking the QDRO be modified to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree.

Section 598.21(5) treats property brought into a marriage as a factor in equitable division, rather than automatically awarding it to the spouse who previously owned it.

In Re the Marriage of Jennifer M. Campbell and Joel T. Campbell Upon the Petition of Jennifer M. Campbell, and Concernin · filed 2014-05-14(5)

Rather, property brought into the marriage by a party is merely a factor among many to be considered under section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) treats property brought into a marriage as a factor in equitable division and permits its division after a ten-year marriage.

In Re the Marriage of David Paul Walker and Jeanette Renee Walker Upon the Petition of David Paul Walker, and Concerning · filed 2014-10-01(5)

Because property brought into the marriage is only one factor among many considered under section 598.21(5), we conclude the parties’ ten-year marriage is not such a short time that David is entitled to full credit to preclude the court from considering a division of the Vanguard account.

Section 598.21(5) permits a court to offset one spouse’s award of equity in the marital home by awarding the other spouse more retirement assets.

In Re the Marriage of Matthew R. Severin and Bouaphan S. Severin Upon the Petition of Matthew R. Severin, petitioner-app · filed 2014-08-13(5)

It is appropriate for the court to offset the marital home’s equity with retirement assets.

Section 598.21(5)(i) requires courts dividing marital property to consider each party’s economic circumstances, including circumstances provided by gifts and inherited property.

In Re the Marriage of Karen K. Korn and John C. Korn Upon the Petition of Karen K. Korn, petitioner-appellant/cross-appe · filed 2016-09-14(5)(i)

We also note, the reference in Iowa Code section 598.21(5)(i) requiring consideration of each party’s “economic circumstances” in dividing marital property, does not make an exception for the economic circumstances provided by gifts and inherited property.

Section 598.21(7) bars modification of a dissolution decree’s property division provisions.

In Re the Marriage of Jamie Tekippe N/K/A Jamie Weiss and Joseph Tekippe Upon the Petition of Jamie Tekippe N/K/A Jamie · filed 2017-02-08(7)

The decree’s provisions regarding the property division are not modifiable. See Iowa Code § 598.21(7) (2015).

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable division of marital property based on its listed factors, and the court may decide equity using the evidence available when a spouse fails to disclose assets credibly.

In Re the Marriage of Amanda Abd El Krim and Mohamed Khalil Amin Upon the Petition of Amanda Abd El Krim, and Concerning · filed 2017-06-07(5)

Iowa law requires courts to divide marital property “equitably between the parties,” considering several factors. ... Mohamed gains nothing by exploiting his own failure to come forward with accurate information about his assets. ... To the extent that the parties’ evidence allowed, the district court considered the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) in dividing the parties’ marital property. Mohamed provides us with no authority in support of his request to modify the property award. We are not persuaded it was inequitable to award the California real estate and bank account to Amanda.

Section 598.21(5) directs courts to consider the spouses’ relative earning capacity and economic circumstances when making an equitable property division.

In Re the Marriage of Scott Allen Boucher and Cantana Angela Boucher Upon the Petition of Scott Allen Boucher, and Conce · filed 2017-09-13(5)

Like the district court, we will consider the relative ... disparity of the earning capacity and economic circumstances of each party in determining an equitable property division. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (2013).

Section 598.21(5) calls for an equitable division of marital property based on the spouses’ circumstances, and a home with little equity may be awarded to the spouse able to assume its payments.

In re Marriage of Firestone · filed 2018-01-10(5)

Iowa courts strive to divide marital property equitably between divorcing spouses based on the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (2016). ... We affirm the court’s decision to award Diana the marital home under these circumstances. With little, if any, equity in the home, its award to Diana is a practical disposition.

Section 598.21 requires property division to be fair and equitable under the circumstances, but does not require equal shares.

In re Marriage of Barrett · filed 2018-02-07

Property division issues are guided by Iowa Code section 598.21. Iowa does not require an equal division of property, but the division must be fair and equitable according to the specific circumstances of the dissolution.

An alimony award that compensates for an unequal property division is not itself a nonmodifiable property division when it terminates on ordinary alimony conditions and has no fixed or determinable total.

In re the Marriage of Herum · filed 2018-05-02(7)

Under these circumstances, we conclude the “alimony” awarded in this case is properly understood as an alimony award, not part of a property settlement or in lieu of property.

Section 598.21(5) guides the equitable division of marital property through statutory factors.

In re the Marriage of Lesline · filed 2018-08-15(5)

The court’s division of property from a marriage is guided by the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) permits an equitable division of property in a short marriage without requiring equal shares.

In re the Marriage of Demmer · filed 2018-09-12(5)

Achieving equity does not require an equal division of property in most short-term marriages.

Section 598.21(1) permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is equitable under the circumstances.

In re the Marriage of Grask · filed 2018-11-21(1)

When the court dissolves a marriage, it must divide the parties’ property equitably. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (2015). ... Although the award is not equal, it is far from the disparity Bill alleges, and we are unable to find it inequitable under the circumstances.

Section 598.21(5) permits a court to consider a spouse’s military disability payments when equitably dividing marital property, even though the payments themselves are not divisible marital property.

In re the Marriage of Jensen · filed 2019-08-07(5)

Similarly, his disability payments may be considered in the equitable division of the parties’ marital property.

A property division approved in a separate-maintenance decree under section 598.21(7) cannot later be challenged as inequitable in a dissolution proceeding.

In Re the Marriage of Gary E. Erlandson and Susan Kay Erlandson Upon the Petition of Gary E. Erlandson, and Concerning S · filed 2017-08-02(7)

See also Iowa Code § 598.21(7) (stating a property division under chapter 598 is “not subject to modification”). ... Gary is foreclosed from now arguing the disposition of the home is inequitable.

Section 598.21(5) permits a court to treat a home acquired before marriage and later quitclaimed to one spouse as divisible property and award it equitably.

In Re the Marriage of Annie M. Wallert and Brian E. Schade Upon the Petition of Annie M. Wallert, and Concerning Brian E · filed 2017-10-25(5)

Therefore, the district court appropriately considered the marital home as a part of the divisible estate and equitably awarded the home to Schade with other assets awarded to Wallert.

Section 598.21(5) does not make premarital cohabitation a relevant consideration in dividing property.

In re the Marriage of Naylor · filed 2018-11-07(5)

We reject Ashely’s contention that the period of cohabitation prior to the marriage should be considered as part of the marriage for the purposes of dividing property. Notably, the statute does not identify premarital cohabitation as a relevant consideration.

Gambling losses during the marriage that the other spouse knew about do not constitute dissipation of marital assets for equitable property division.

In re the Marriage of Jacobs · filed 2019-01-09(5)

The factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) guide the court in making an equitable division. ... Because Catherine’s claim concerns gambling losses she says occurred during the marriage, we disagree that they amounted to a waste of marital assets and decline to consider them in the property distribution.

Section 598.21(5) allows the length of the marriage to support an equal division of marital property.

In re the Marriage of Schmidt · filed 2020-06-03(5)

We also conclude the court acted equitably in equally dividing the property based at the very least on the length of the marriage. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(7) generally bars modification of an unappealed property division in a dissolution decree.

In re the Marriage of Hutchinson · filed 2021-07-21(7)

Where, as here, no one appeals the dissolution decree, its property division is “not subject to modification.” Iowa Code § 598.21(7); see also Simon v. Simon, No. 15-0814, 2016 WL 1703521, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016) (noting collateral attacks on the property division are generally impermissible).

Section 598.21(5) permits consideration of evidence that a spouse has an unreported interest in a business venture when dividing marital property equitably.

In re the Marriage of Irwin · filed 2021-08-18(5)

Here, the court reviewed all of the evidence before it— including evidence Eric has some unreported interest in the apartment business venture—and then applied the relevant factors to reach an equitable property division under these unique facts. Because the court did not “fail to do equity,” we decline to disturb the court’s ruling.

Section 598.21(7) generally prohibits modification of an unappealed property division in a dissolution decree.

In re the Marriage of Rana · filed 2021-10-20(7)

Neither party appealed, so the property division is generally “not subject to modification.” Id. § 598.21(7).

Section 598.21(7) generally prevents modification of a dissolution decree’s property division after direct appeal, but fraud, duress, coercion, mistake, or similar grounds may justify a change.

In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson, In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson · filed 2022-05-20(7)

Property divisions in a dissolution decree are not usually subject to modification following the conclusion of a direct appeal. Iowa Code § 598.21(7); see In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Iowa 2009). However, property divisions in a dissolution decree can be subject to modification after direct appeal if there is a finding of “fraud, duress, coercion, mistake or some other grounds that would justify changing the decree.” Brown, 776 N.W.2d. at 647.

Section 598.21(5) permits division of existing assets and debts, but past equity lost when a vehicle was transferred during the marriage cannot be separately awarded at dissolution.

In re the Marriage of Rasmussen · filed 2024-08-07(5)

But this “lost equity,” as the court termed it, was not property in existence at the time of trial that could be awarded. And the payment could not be considered an equalization payment because it does not equalize the property division—it makes the division less equal. Thus, the court’s order for Ben to pay Alexis $20,000 for her lost equity in the Mercedes-Benz is inequitable and must be removed from the decree.

Section 598.21(5)(b) treats property brought into the marriage as one factor in an equitable division and does not require repayment of its original value when its proceeds were used to buy marital property.

In re the Marriage of Wheeler · filed 2020-07-22(5)(b)

This would not be an equitable division of assets, and we agree with the district court’s decision not to award Tad the first $26,000 of the auction proceeds before splitting the rest.

Section 598.21(7) does not permit modification of the property-distribution provisions of a dissolution decree.

In re the Marriage of Curtis · filed 2020-08-19(7)

We also note the property-distribution provisions of the dissolution decree are not modifiable.

Section 598.21(5) permits an unequal property division when the court weighs the spouses’ contributions, health, income disparity, and need for support.

In re the Marriage of Schmitz · filed 2021-11-03(5)(c), (d), (h)

We are unpersuaded. The district court considered pertinent statutory factors, including Paula’s contributions to the marriage, Steven’s health, and Paula’s spousal support request. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c), (d), (h) (2019). ... Even under Steven’s proposed calculation using fair market value, given the significant disparity in income, Paula’s contributions to the marriage, and Paula’s need for support, we do not find the property settlement to be inequitable.

Section 598.21(5) requires equitable division of property based on the circumstances of each case and the statutory factors.

In re the Marriage of Klaren · filed 2022-05-11(5)

What is equitable is determined by the unique circumstances of each case and in consideration of the factors codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) permits an equitable property division that is not equal, taking into account the property each spouse brought into the marriage and their economic circumstances.

In re the Marriage of Joann L. Barten and Troy T. Bigelow · filed 2023-03-08(5)(a), (i)

But as stated, we are required to make an equitable distribution of property, not an equal one. In doing so, we may consider the property each party brought into the marriage and economic circumstances of the parties. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(a), (i).

Section 598.21(5) permits an unequal division of marital property when the statutory factors make that division equitable.

In re the Marriage of Clasing · filed 2023-11-21(5)

We agree with the district court’s analysis. “An equitable distribution of marital property, based upon the factors in [Iowa Code section] 598.21(5), does not require an equal division of assets.” In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 682 (Iowa 2013) (citation omitted).

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable division of marital property and debts; depending on the parties’ circumstances, only an equal division may be equitable.

In re the Marriage of Shannon · filed 2024-07-03(5)

We also agree that on these facts, only an equal division of the parties’ property and debts is equitable.

Section 598.21(5) requires equitable division of property when a marriage is dissolved, except for inherited property or gifts.

In re Marriage of Carter · filed 2023-07-26(5)

When dissolving a marriage, the district court is to equitably divide all property between the parties, with the exception of inherited property or gifts.

Section 598.21(5)(h) requires courts to consider the amount and duration of spousal support when deciding whether a property division is equitable.

In re Marriage of Van Voorst · filed 2021-11-03(5)(h)

However, despite the unequal nature of the property division, we find it is equitable when considered in tandem with the spousal support award.

Section 598.21(5)(h) calls for property division and spousal support to be considered together; in a long marriage with unequal earnings, both support and a nearly equal property division may be appropriate.

In re The Marriage of McCreedy · filed 2023-09-13(5)(h)

Property division and spousal support are considered together in evaluating their individual sufficiency. See Iowa Code §§ 598.21(5)(h), .21A(1)(c); In re Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991).

Section 598.21(5) makes equitable distribution the primary goal when dividing marital property, even when preserving a farming operation is a reasonable goal.

In re Marriage of Meints · filed 2022-01-27(5)

While we recognize the reasonable goals Jeff and the district court stated for keeping the farm assets together, our primary goal is an equitable distribution. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) requires courts to consider the facts of each case and the listed factors when dividing property equitably.

In re the Marriage of Bell · filed 2024-09-04(5)

Dividing property equitably requires considering the facts of each case and the factors in Iowa Code section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) requires equitable division of marital property and debts in light of the parties’ circumstances and the statutory factors.

In re the Marriage of Jendro · filed 2024-12-18(5)

A court must decide what is equitable “in light of the particular circumstances of the parties” while considering the factors in Iowa Code section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(6) permits division of one spouse’s gifted property when leaving it solely with that spouse would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children, including where the other spouse must support the children without meaningful financial contributions from the recipient.

In re Marriage of Weydert · filed 2025-03-05(6)

Iowa Code section 598.21(6) (2022) prohibits division of gifts received by one spouse “except upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the marriage.” ... Amber will continue to provide for their three children, and since Chris is unable to contribute financially due to his disability, the division of gifted property was necessary to ensure Amber and the children’s support.

Section 598.21(5)(f) calls for consideration of income disparity and the use of marital funds when deciding whether a spouse must repay a temporary payment in the property division.

In re Marriage of Foster · filed 2025-03-05(5)(f)

And we do not think it was equitable for the court to order her to do so, considering the disparity in the parties’ incomes and the use of marital funds to make the payment. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(f).

Section 598.21(5) includes assets and debts in the divisible estate even when spouses kept their finances separate during the marriage.

In re Marriage of Oyadare · filed 2025-04-09(5)

Because “all property” is included in the divisible estate, the district court correctly rejected Billy’s attempt to set aside most of the parties’ assets and debts as nonmarital based on how the Oyadares handled their finances during the marriage.

Section 598.21(5) subjects property to equitable division even when it is titled in only one spouse’s name.

In re Marriage of Sanders · filed 2025-06-18(5)

Even though the RV was titled in Tameka’s name only, it is subject to division in their divorce.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of inherited property when excluding it would be inequitable to the other spouse, including proceeds from a marital home purchased with inherited funds that the other spouse maintained and improved.

In re the Marriage of Raveling · filed 2025-08-20(6)

Inherited property is generally exempt from distribution unless “refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party.” Iowa Code § 598.21(6). ... Against this backdrop, we agree with Suzann that it would be inequitable not to divide the $70,132.57 in proceeds between the parties.

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable property division that considers each spouse’s earning capacity and the property each brought into the marriage.

In re the Marriage of Bell · filed 2025-10-29(5)

Other important considerations in our analysis under section 598.21(5) are that Bradley has a much higher earning capacity than Stacy and brought significantly more property into the marriage than Stacy. The property that Bradley brought into the marriage was the vehicle for the large growth of net worth. Bradley will continue to have a higher earning capacity than Stacy. Given these considerations, we believe the district court’s allocation of property and equalization payment does equity.

Section 598.21(5)(k) requires courts to consider the parties’ written property distribution agreement, but permits rejection of an unfair or unlawful stipulation.

In re the Marriage of Wagner · filed 2026-03-11(5)(k)

Iowa Code section 598.21(5)(k) provides that the district court shall consider “[a]ny written agreement made by the parties concerning property distribution.” But just as the district court could disregard the mediated agreement as to child custody, it also can reject the parties’ pre-trial agreement as to property. As to a pre-trial property division agreement, the court has the authority to reject a stipulation if it is unfair or contrary to law.

Section 598.21(5)(h) permits an equitable property award in lieu of ongoing spousal support.

In re the Marriage of Humphrey · filed 2026-01-07(5)(h)

And we agree with the district court that the payment in lieu of spousal support is equitable under the unique facts here.

Section 598.21(5) permits an equalization payment after weighing the property division factors, even when the paying spouse brought more property into the marriage and faces health issues.

In Re the Marriage of Peggy J. Troyna and Robert C. Cline Upon the Petition of Peggy J. Troyna, and Concerning Robert C. · filed 2014-03-26(5)

We do not accept Robert’s position that the factors in section 598.21(5) call for completely relieving him of the obligation to make an equalization payment to Peggy.

Section 598.21(5) permits an equalization payment below the amount needed for an equal division when its factors make that result equitable.

In Re the Marriage of Melissa Lyne Snider and Jonathan Edward Snider Upon the Petition of Melissa Lyne Snider, and Conce · filed 2017-04-19(5)

Considering the section 598.21(5) factors, we find an equalization payment in an amount less than $20,250 is equitable under these circumstances.

Under section 598.21(5), marital debts paid before dissolution do not justify an equalization payment when dissipation has not been proved.

In Re the Marriage of Robert H. Goodrich and Teresa O. Goodrich Upon the Petition of Robert H. Goodrich, petitioner-appe · filed 2017-10-11(5)

But because those debts had been satisfied— and Teresa has not proven a claim of dissipation—it would be inequitable to order Robert to make an equalization payment in any amount.

In assessing whether a property division is equitable under section 598.21(5), a court may count one spouse’s payment of the other spouse’s attorney fees as an equalization payment.

In re Marriage of Koster · filed 2017-12-06(5)

What Lisa’s calculation ignores, however, is that the district court ordered “Ryan to pay Lisa’s entire attorney fees in the amount of $46,805,” fashioning such as an equalization payment, as well as the remaining guardian ad litem fees in the amount of $634.00. ... Considering Lisa’s specific request and the factors contained in Iowa Code section 598.21(5), we find this distribution equitable and therefore affirm the property-distribution portion of the district court’s order.

Section 598.21(5) permits an equalization payment as part of an equitable property division when the asset awards would otherwise be unequal.

In re the Marriage of Gardner · filed 2025-03-19(5)

And as part of the division, a court may order an equalization payment from one party to the other to achieve a more equal division than would otherwise be practical. ... On our review, we thus agree with the district court that the property division and the $250,000 equalization payment are equitable.

Section 598.21 requires courts to consider income tax consequences when dividing marital property, including likely taxes from liquidating assets to make a lump-sum payment to a spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Hogeland · filed 1989-10-05(1)(j), (3)(g)

The court is directed to consider the income tax consequences when allocating property in a dissolution. ... We determine where, as here, the payment of a lump sum of cash to a spouse will in all probability require the liquidation of capital assets, the income tax consequences of such a sale should be considered by the trial court in assessing the equities of the property and alimony award.

Section 598.21(1)(j) allows tax consequences to be considered in dividing property, but a court should not discount an asset for taxes from a hypothetical sale when no sale is ordered or contemplated.

In Re the Marriage of Friedman · filed 1991-02-20(1)(j)

In the case at bar, the problem with considering tax consequences on the sale of corporate stock in the possession of Gary is that there was no evidence that a sale was pending or even contemplated. There is little doubt that a car dealership is a highly marketable business and that the stock would be readily saleable. But where there is no evidence to support a discounting based on a sale and the trial court has not ordered a sale, the effect of considering income tax consequences on a sale is to diminish the asset value to the nonowning spouse.

Section 598.21(5)(j) permits consideration of tax consequences when one spouse receives a disproportionate share of marital assets with a reduced tax basis from excess depreciation, even if no sale is anticipated.

In Re the Marriage of Angela Renee Johnston and Jeremy James Johnston Upon the Petition of Angela Renee Johnston, and Co · filed 2014-12-10(5)(j)

We conclude it is appropriate to consider the tax consequences when one party is awarded a disparate amount of the marital assets that have a reduced tax basis because the parties have taken excess depreciation even though a sale may not be anticipated.

Section 598.21(5)(j) requires courts to consider the tax consequences to each spouse when dividing marital assets and debts equitably.

In re the Marriage of Bechthold · filed 2018-11-07(5)(j)

In dividing marital assets and debts, courts are to consider, among other things, “[t]he tax consequences to each party.” Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(j).

Section 598.21(5)(j) makes the tax consequences of an equalization payment one factor in property division, to be weighed with the other circumstances.

In re Marriage of Williams · filed 2024-10-16(5)(j)

While we have previously considered the tax consequences of an equalization payment requiring liquidation of assets, see In re Marriage of Bertrand, No. 06-1937, 2007 WL 3376894, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2007), this is just one of many factors considered by the court, see Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(j) (2021).

Section 598.21(1) calls for property division based on each spouse’s tangible contributions, including financial support, homemaking, child care, and responsibility for debts.

In re the Marriage of Bulanda · filed 1989-11-27(1)

In reviewing a property division, we are guided by the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(1). ... The contributions of each party to a marriage are to be considered when making a property disposition. ... In light of petitioner’s contributions to this marriage, her assumption of the vast majority of the parties’ debts (approximately $7,500), and her responsibility for the physical care of five children, the lien awarded to respondent should be decreased.

Section 598.21(1) requires courts dividing marital property to consider factors including the marriage’s length, property each spouse brought to the marriage, each spouse’s contributions including homemaking, and each spouse’s earning capacity.

In Re the Marriage of Hass · filed 1995-08-17(1)

Among the many factors to consider are: length of the marriage; property brought to the marriage by each party; the contribution of each party to the marriage, giving appropriate economic value to each party’s contribution in homemaking; and, the earning capacity of each party. Iowa Code § 598.21(1).

Section 598.21(1) treats homemaking as a tangible contribution when equitably dividing property that appreciated during the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Grady-Woods · filed 1998-02-25(1)

Homemaking is considered a tangible contribution to a marriage. Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (1997).

Section 598.21(6) permits division of inherited property when refusing to divide it would be inequitable to the other spouse; the court considers the spouses’ contributions to the property, their relationships with the donor, their economic circumstances and special needs, and the length of the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Craig A. Larson and Julie A. Larson Upon the Petition of Craig A. Larson, petitioner-appellant/cro · filed 2016-02-10(6)

After examining these factors, we conclude Craig’s remainder interest in Hirner’s farmland was improperly considered part of the marital estate and should not have been subject to equitable division.

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable division of marital property based on factors including the marriage’s length, each party’s contributions and earning capacity, and other relevant circumstances.

In re the Marriage of Wilson · filed 2019-02-06(5)

In dividing the parties’ property, the court must divide the parties’ property equitably. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (2015). When dividing the parties’ property, the court considers a number of factors, including “[t]he length of the marriage,” “[t]he property brought to the marriage by each party,” “[t]he contribution of each party to the marriage,” “[t]he earning capacity of each party,” the amount and duration of spousal support granted, and any other relevant factors. Iowa Code §598.21(5). ... In considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find the district court’s valuation of the parties’ assets was within the range of evidence and the distribution of assets was equitable.

Section 598.21(5)(c) requires courts to consider both financial and nonfinancial contributions to the marriage when dividing marital property equitably.

In re the Marriage of Ficek · filed 2018-09-12(5)(c)

The court must consider both financial and non-financial contributions in determining an equitable distribution.

Inherited property may be divided when excluding it would be unjust to the other spouse in light of that spouse’s relationship with the donor and contributions during the marriage.

Oldenburger v. Oldenburger · filed 2022-02-16(6)

We conclude her involvement rendered it unjust to exclude Home Farm and 40 Acres from the property subject to division.

Section 598.21(5)(m) allows a court to consider premarital cohabitation when it shows a spouse’s contributions to the property being divided.

In re Marriage of Burmeister · filed 2023-07-26(5)(m)

Although the statute does not specifically mention consideration of a cohabitation period, it does include a provision allowing the court to include other factors it determines to be relevant to the individual case. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(m). Here, the couple’s cohabitation prior to their marriage is relevant because it establishes Carrie’s continued contributions to the care of Kurt’s children and the building of his business.

Section 598.21(5)(c) requires courts dividing marital property to consider both financial and nonfinancial contributions; earning more alone does not entitle a spouse to keep assets acquired during the marriage.

In re Marriage of Bolger · filed 2023-11-08(5)(c)

We are required to consider each party’s contributions to the marriage, both financial and non-financial. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c). We do not and cannot accept Joleen’s bright-line keep- what-I-earned mentality for assets acquired during the marriage.

Section 598.21(1) requires courts to consider each spouse’s contributions when dividing property even if premarital assets remained constant in value or declined during the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Garst · filed 1997-11-25(1)

However, when the value of premarital assets remains constant or declines during the marriage, the same statutory factor — the contribution of the parties — is still considered. The change in value of the asset is not critical to the analysis.

Section 598.21(1)(b) treats property brought into the marriage as a factor in equitable division, without giving its owner full credit for its premarital value.

In Re the Marriage of Brainard · filed 1994-08-25(1)(b)

Our law, however, does not give credit to a party for the value of the property owned prior to the marriage. To the contrary, the property brought to the marriage by each party is only a factor to consider together with the other relevant factors in determining an equitable property division. Iowa Code § 598.21(l)(b) (1993).

Section 598.21(1)(b) treats property brought into the marriage as a factor in equitable division that may, but need not, justify a full credit.

In Re the Marriage of Miller · filed 1996-05-31(1)(b)

Property which a party brings into the marriage is a factor to consider in making an equitable division. Iowa Code § 598.21(l)(b). In some instances, this factor may justify a full credit, but does not require it.

Section 598.21(1)(b) makes property brought into the marriage a factor in equitable division, which may justify full credit but does not require it.

In Re the Marriage of Wendell · filed 1998-04-24(1)(b)

Property which a party brings into the marriage is a factor to consider in making an equitable division. Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(b). In some instances, this factor may justify a full credit, but it is not required.

Section 598.21(1) makes premarital property subject to equitable division, except for gifts and inherited property.

In Re Marriage of Fennelly & Breckenfelder · filed 2007-07-20(1)

Property may be “marital” or “premarital,” but it is all subject to division except for gifts and inherited property. Iowa Code § 598.21(1).

Section 598.21(5)(a) makes the length of the marriage a factor in equitable property division, and a short marriage can justify leaving each spouse with premarital property and debt.

In Re the Marriage of Bernard Joseph Sinclair Jr. and Margarette Lynn Morr, Upon the Petition of Bernard Joseph Sinclair · filed 2014-08-27(5)(a)

In this case, the distribution of assets is driven by the short duration of the marriage. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(a).

Section 598.21(5) makes property brought into the marriage a factor in equitably dividing marital assets and debts.

In Re the Marriage of Sarah L. Kingrey and Justin J. Kingrey Upon the Petition of Sarah L. Kingrey, and Concerning Justi · filed 2016-04-27(5)

One of the many factors we consider is the property brought into the marriage by each party. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5). ... The district court’s distribution of marital debts and assets was equitable, thus we decline to change the economic provisions of the dissolution decree.

Section 598.21(5)(b) makes property brought into the marriage a factor in equitable distribution, without requiring that property to be awarded to its premarital owner.

In Re the Marriage of Larry C. Harrah and Angela Sue Harrah Upon the Petition of Larry C. Harrah, and Concerning Angela · filed 2014-03-26(5)(b)

Property brought to the marriage by each party is a factor to be considered when crafting the final division of property. Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(b).

Section 598.21(1)(b) treats property owned before marriage as divisible property, with its premarital ownership considered in making an equitable division.

In Re the Marriage of Deann M. Simon and Leo F. Simon Upon the Petition of Deann M. Simon, and Concerning Leo F. Simon · filed 2014-12-24(1)(b)

First, Iowa Code section 598.21 “is written to define divisible property as ‘all property’ of the parties” and, but for exceptions not relevant here, “includes not only property acquired during the marriage by one or both of the parties, but property owned prior to the marriage by a party.” Id.

Premarital property is a factor in equitable division under section 598.21(5)(b), but it does not require a full credit to the spouse who brought it into the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of David Meyers and Anna Meyers Upon the Petition of David Meyers, and Concerning Anna Meyers · filed 2015-04-22(5)(b)

The property a party brings into the marriage is a factor to consider in making an equitable division. Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(b). In some instances, this factor may justify a full credit, but it is not required.

Section 598.21(5) treats property brought into a marriage as part of the divisible estate, with its premarital ownership one factor in equitable division.

In Re the Marriage of Seth H. Crawford and Tricia L. Fairchild Upon the Petition of Seth H. Crawford, and Concerning Tri · filed 2016-06-15(5)

Rather, property brought into the marriage by a party is merely a factor among many to be considered under section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) treats property brought into the marriage as a factor in equitable division, rather than automatically awarding it to the spouse who owned it before marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Sandi I. Hansen and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, and Concerning Andrew J · filed 2016-07-27(5)

Rather, property brought into the marriage by a party is merely a factor among many to be considered under section 598.21(5).

Section 598.21(5) guides equitable property division through factors including the length of the marriage, premarital property, each spouse’s contributions, health, and earning capacity.

In re the Marriage of Ingersoll · filed 2018-07-18(5)

The court’s division of property from a marriage is guided by the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.21(5). Among the statutory factors considered are the length of marriage, premarital property, contributions of each party to the marriage, age of the parties, emotional and physical health of the parties, earning capacity of each party, and others.

Premarital property is subject to equitable division, with its premarital status considered as a factor that may justify setting aside its value to the original owner.

In Re the Marriage of Brian K. Smith and Bonnie J. Smith Upon the Petition of Brian K. Smith, petitioner-appellant/cross · filed 2017-01-25(5)(b)

Premarital property is not automatically excluded from the marital estate like gifted or inherited property. ... After our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s finding that under the circumstances of this marriage, where both parties were gainfully employed before they married and each retained some financial independence during the marriage, equity requires the premarital value to be set aside to Brian.

Section 598.21(5) permits pension accounts to be included in equitable property division when the owner acknowledges that the pension accrued during the marriage and agrees it should be divided equitably.

In Re the Marriage of George Thomas Davis III and Lizeth Marie Barcelo Aviles Upon the Petition of George Thomas Davis I · filed 2017-10-11(5)

In light of this testimony, we conclude the district court acted equitably in including the pension accounts in the property division rather than setting a portion of them aside to her before making the division.

Section 598.21(5) permits premarital property to be included in an equitable division, taking account of each spouse’s contributions and economic circumstances.

In re the Marriage of Gutcher · filed 2018-10-24(5)

Equity requires an equal division of the parties’ property, including the parties’ premarital property. Ed brought significant assets, including farming assets, into the marriage. He would not have been able to retain the farming operation without Nancy’s sizable financial support of Ed’s perpetually unprofitable farm for the entirety of the marriage.

Premarital property is subject to division under § 598.21(5), with its premarital status treated as one factor rather than an automatic exclusion.

In re the Marriage of Lynch · filed 2019-01-23(5)(b)

We agree with Rebecca that premarital property is not automatically excluded from the marital estate like gifted or inherited property; rather, it is subject to division and its status is merely one factor to be considered in dividing the marital estate.

Section 598.21(5) permits premarital property to be considered in an equitable division of marital assets.

In re the Marriage of Monat · filed 2019-03-06(5)

When considering the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.21(5), it becomes apparent an equal division of the assets, including the premarital property, is equitable here.

Section 598.21 requires courts to include premarital property in the divisible estate and divide it equitably rather than automatically setting it aside to its original owner.

In re the Marriage of Ayala · filed 2019-05-01(5)

Indeed, the court’s statutory obligation is to “divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received or expected by one party, equitably between the parties.” Iowa Code § 598.21 (2016). We find the court acted properly by including the parties’ premarital property in the division of assets.

Premarital ownership is a factor in equitable property division, but a premarital asset is not automatically set aside like gifted property.

In re the Marriage of Ruba · filed 2019-11-27(5)(b)

A premarital asset is not set aside like gifted property. ... Instead, ownership predating the marriage is one factor to consider along with all other circumstances in determining the overall property division.

Section 598.21(5)(b) treats property brought into a long marriage as a factor in equitable division, without entitling its original owner to a credit for its premarital value.

In re the Marriage of Knutson · filed 2020-10-21(5)(b)

Natalie argues David should not receive any credit for premarital assets. We agree. ... “To the contrary, the property brought to the marriage by each party is only a factor to consider together with the other relevant factors in determining an equitable property division.” Brainard, 523 N.W.2d at 616 (citing what is now Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(b)). ... Given the length of the marriage and the contribution of each party, no credit is warranted. We modify the decree to eliminate the $122,010 credit.

Section 598.21(5)(b) requires courts to consider property brought into the marriage when dividing assets equitably, but does not require full credit for it.

In re the Marriage of Lorenz · filed 2021-01-21(5)(b)

Courts must consider the property parties brought into the marriage when equitably dividing the marital estate. Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(b). “[T]his factor may justify a full credit, but does not require it.”

Section 598.21(5)(c) permits a spouse’s income, homemaking, and childcare contributions to support an equal share of the appreciation in premarital property, even when some appreciation is fortuitous.

In re the Marriage of Peckumn · filed 2022-03-02(5)(c)

We agree with Jessica. We find it equitable given the circumstances of this marriage to evenly divide the appreciated value of the premarital property. We need not emphasize how the property appreciated “fortuitously versus laboriously.”

Section 598.21(5)(b) permits a court to credit a spouse for the premarital value of property brought into the marriage when equity warrants it.

In re Marriage of Marasco · filed 2023-06-07(5)(b)

This factor can be used to essentially set aside the premarital value of property to the spouse bringing the property into the marriage when it is equitable to do so.

Section 598.21 requires equitable division of premarital property; the length of the marriage and each spouse’s contributions inform the division.

In re the Marriage of Nunez · filed 2024-07-03(5)

First, Iowa equitably divides all property held by the parties—there is no statutory carveout for premarital property like there is for inheritances and gifts.

Section 598.21(5)(b) makes property each spouse brought to the marriage a factor in equitable property division.

In re the Marriage of McCabe · filed 2022-02-16(5)(b)

When a court divides property due to a dissolution, “[t]he property brought to the marriage by each party” is a factor it considers in making an equitable distribution.

Section 598.21(5)(b) makes property brought to the marriage a factor in equitable division; in a short marriage, a spouse has a minimal claim to the other spouse’s premarital property.

In re the Marriage of Allen · filed 2022-12-07(5)(b)

When equitably dividing the marital property, we mull the factors in Iowa Code section 598.21(5) (2020). See Hansen, 886 N.W.2d at 872. For this appeal, key among those factors is “[t]he property brought to the marriage by each party.” Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(b). True, premarital ownership is just one factor among many to be considered in a fair distribution. But in a short-term marriage, like this one, a party’s claim to the premarital property owned by the other spouse is minimal.

Section 598.21(5) does not require automatic reimbursement of a premarital down payment, but equitable circumstances may justify giving the contributing spouse full credit.

In re the Marriage of Froiland · filed 2022-07-20(5)

The district court did not need to automatically award that entire down payment to Katie as premarital property.

The short duration of a marriage can weigh against awarding one spouse a share of appreciation in the other spouse’s home.

In re Marriage of Paulsen · filed 2023-04-12(5)(a)

Finally, as the district court pointed out, the marriage was brief. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(a) (2020). ... On our de novo review, we conclude the district court acted equitably in declining to award Dale any appreciation in the value of Teresa’s home.

Premarital property, including retirement accounts, is divisible; bringing property into the marriage is a factor in its equitable distribution.

In re Marriage of Bird · filed 2025-09-17(5)

Property brought into the marriage by a party is merely a factor to consider by the court, together with all other factors to determine an equitable distribution of property at the end of the marriage. ... We determine that the district court properly considered both accounts as part of the marital estate, subject to division between James and Rozanne.

Section 598.21(1) gives dissolution courts discretion to award interest on property distributions according to equitable principles; prejudgment interest under section 535.3 does not apply as a matter of course.

In Re the Marriage of Baculis · filed 1988-10-19(1)

We conclude that section 535.3 is a general statute and, in the present case, is in conflict with section 598.21(1), a specific statute for the disposition of marital property. Therefore, the rule set out in Iowa Code section 4.7 applies, excepting the use of the prejudgment interest portion of section 535.3 in cases determining the equitable distribution of property under section 598.21(1).

Section 598.21(5) permits equitable division of appreciation in premarital real estate while setting aside its premarital value.

In Re the Marriage of Jill Eileen Shepperd and Douglas Duane Shepperd Upon the Petition of Jill Eileen Shepperd, and Con · filed 2015-11-12(5)

Iowa Code section 598.21(5) requires “all property, except inherited property or gifts received by one party,” to be equitably divided between the parties. ... Without interpreting the precise meaning of the district court’s ruling on this issue, we determine that it is equitable and appropriate to equitably divide the post- marital appreciation value of all the real estate, setting aside to Douglas the premarital values.

Section 598.21(5) calls for equitable division of property bought with personal-injury settlement proceeds, considering how the proceeds were spent and the length of the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Cathy J. Klemme and Thomas W. Klemme Upon the Petition of Cathy J. Klemme, and Concerning Thomas W · filed 2014-10-15(5)

Considering the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(5)—especially the length of the marriage, the more than twenty years that passed between the receipt of the settlement proceeds and the divorce, and the manner in which the proceeds were spent—we find an equal distribution of the property is equitable.

Section 598.21(5) includes personal injury settlement payments received before dissolution in the marital property subject to equitable division.

In Re the Marriage of Rilla Marie Schmitt and James Lee Schmitt Upon the Petition of Rilla Marie Schmitt, and Concerning · filed 2016-06-29(5)

However, the settlement payment received before the dissolution is marital property and should have been considered in the division of assets.

Section 598.21 includes settlement proceeds in the marital assets subject to equitable distribution.

In Re the Marriage of Benjamin Rigdon and Alicia Rigdon Upon the Petition of Benjamin Rigdon, petitioner-appellee/cross- · filed 2017-01-25(5)-(6)

Under the relevant statute, settlement proceeds are not excluded from the marital assets. Iowa Code § 598.21(5)-(6). We hold, and the parties concede, that the marital assets include the settlement proceeds.

Section 598.21(5) permits an individual fishing quota producing passive lease income to be divided between spouses when the overall property distribution is equitable.

In re the Marriage of Keller · filed 2021-09-22(5)

Upon a dissolution of marriage, a court must divide all marital property equitably between the parties. Iowa Code § 598.21(5). ... Because this situation differs from Callenius, the district court was free to divide the IFQ as it saw fit, so long as the overall distribution was equitable.

Section 598.21(5)(i) permits division of stock awards and units earned during marriage even when they have not yet vested.

In re the Marriage of Sundby · filed 2022-03-30(5)(i)

The district court correctly determined the Danaher stock accounts had to be included in the property division. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(i) (stating “[f]uture interests may be considered”).

Section 598.21(5) allows a valuation of a closely held marital business within the permissible range of evidence to stand when dividing property equitably.

In re Marriage of Nelson · filed 2025-02-19(5)

In a dissolution decree, “[t]he court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received or expected by one party, equitably between the parties.” Iowa Code § 598.21(5). ... The district court’s valuation is well within the permissible range of evidence.

Section 598.21(1) calls for an equitable division of marital property based on the statutory factors; equal division can be equitable when both spouses contributed to the success of a business.

In Re The Marriage Of Jody L. Keener And Connie H. Keener Upon The Petition Of Jody L. Keener · filed 2007-02-09(1)

The Iowa Code provides a list of factors that must be considered. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1). ... We agree with the district court it was equitable to divide the property equally because both parties were instrumental in making Alpha a success.

Section 598.21(1) requires evidence of present value when valuing marital property; a court may not assign a speculative value to a business’s intangible assets.

In Re the Marriage of Keener · filed 2007-02-09(1)

There is not adequate evidence in the record to measure the fair market value of Alpha’s intangible assets. The district court erred by speculating as to the value of these assets. Accordingly, we reduce the value of Connie’s Alpha stock to $10,169,171.

Section 598.21(5) authorizes equitable division of the spouses’ shares in a closely held corporation.

In re the Marriage of Cherny · filed 2018-06-06(5)

Under this language, the court has authority to divide “all property” in a dissolution, which includes the parties’ shares of JSV.

A business owned by a spouse must be included in the property division.

In re the Marriage of Rockwell · filed 2019-01-09(1)

Having concluded Nathan owns the business, the court was required to divide it. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (2016).

Section 598.21(5) permits division of farm income received through a trust when the farm itself is marital property.

In re the Marriage of Matherly · filed 2019-07-24(5)

On our review, we agree the farm proceeds Maribel received under the trust were marital property given the status of the farm as marital property when it was bought and has remained as marital property since.

Section 598.21(5) permits a supported marketability discount when valuing a closely held business for equitable property division, including when the spouses own the entire business.

In re the Marriage of Baedke · filed 2024-08-07(5)

Applying the discount also tracks with Iowa precedent that has affirmed discounting the valuation of a closely held business or its stock in a property division when there is no ready market. See In re Marriage of Muelhaupt, 439 N.W.2d 656, 660 (Iowa 1989). And that precedent has included cases in which the parties owned all of the closely held business.

Section 598.21(5) permits an equitable credit for closely held stock acquired during marriage based on available purchase and buyback evidence when its market value is uncertain.

In re Marriage of Howe · filed 2025-05-21(5)

The only evidence we have on which to evaluate their value is that Jeffrey paid $10,000 out of pocket for his interest and the agreement that each corporation will buy back Jeffrey’s shares for $1000 if he leaves MMA. Adding the $10,000 payment made from marital funds to the $3000 for the buy-back amounts gives us a total value of the stock is $13,000. It is equitable to credit Lee Anne for one-half that amount, which totals $6500.

Section 598.21(5) permits an equitable division of a marital business by locations when that division is workable, even if it is an unusual way to divide a business.

In re the Marriage of Stocker · filed 2025-12-17(5)

We do not divide assets by determining what method is most common, rather, we ask what division does equity.

Section 598.21(1)(g) permits a court to defer payment of a spouse’s equity in the family home until the youngest children turn eighteen when the other spouse has physical care and needs the home to shelter them.

In Re the Marriage of Woodward · filed 1988-05-31(1)(g)

There is no inequity in determining Cheryl's equity should remain in the mobile home until the youngest children reach eighteen years of age.

Section 598.21(1)(g) makes the desirability of awarding the family home to the parent with physical care of the children a factor in dividing marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Burkle · filed 1994-10-25(1)(g)

Among the factors to consider in dividing the property of the marriage is the desirability of awarding the family home to the party having physical care of the children. Iowa Code § 598.21(l)(g) (1993). Under the circumstances, we agree the homestead was properly awarded to Randy. Although the debt load could be reduced if the home was sold, the children will benefit by remaining in familiar surroundings.

Section 598.21 permits an equitable property division that leaves premarital home equity with the spouse who bought and paid for the home and treats nominal net retirement-account appreciation in light of the parties’ other assets.

Emam v. El Nour · filed 2016-06-15(5)

On de novo review, in light of all the relevant statutory factors, see Iowa Code § 598.21 (2015), we decline to disturb the district court’s property division. In this case, Ezam purchased the home while the parties were unmarried, and she alone paid the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs. ... While the value of Ezam’s qualified account appreciated during the marriage, the appreciation was largely offset by loans from the account. The net appreciation of the qualified account during the marriage was nominal in light of the parties’ other assets, including a residence in Eqypt El Nour valued at $450,000, which the parties were ordered to liquidate and split the proceeds. The division was equitable under the circumstances.