Iowa Code § 598.21

Section 598.21(5)(g) makes the desirability of awarding the family home to the parent with physical care of the children a factor in equitable property division.

In Re the Marriage of Gensley · filed 2009-12-17(5)(g)

Iowa Code section 598.21(5) sets forth the factors to consider in an equitable distribution. One of these factors is: ... 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. ... Additionally, Kandi was granted physical care of the children, who stated they wish to remain in the only home they have essentially ever known. ... We affirm the district court’s award of the marital residence to Kandi.

Section 598.21(5)(g) allows a court to give the custodial parent a reasonable time in the family home before ordering its sale as part of an equitable property division.

In Re the Marriage of Kathryn R. Nielsen and Erik J. Nielsen Upon the Petition of Kathryn R. Nielsen, and Concerning Eri · filed 2016-11-09(5)(g)

Additionally, we agree with the district court that it would not be fair and equitable to require Erik to retain ownership of the home. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(g) (“The court shall divide all property . . . equitably between the parties after considering . . . [t]he 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 . . . .”). The decree awarded Kathryn a reasonable period of time to remain in the home with the children following the entry of the decree with Erik’s continued payments of the mortgage; we find this equitable.

Section 598.21(5)(g) makes the desirability of awarding the family home to the parent with physical care one of thirteen nonexclusive factors in dividing property, rather than a dispositive rule.

In re Marriage of Duggan · filed 2025-03-19(5)(g)

The statutory consideration of “[t]he desirability of awarding the family home . . . to the party having physical care of the children” is one of thirteen non-exclusive statutory factors and not dispositive. Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(g).

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable property division based on the statutory factors; an equalization payment may remain equitable after accounting for marital debts omitted from the initial division.

In Re the Marriage of Richard Herbers and Mary Catharine Herbers Upon the Petition of Richard Herbers, and Concerning Ma · filed 2014-03-12(5)

No matter how we analyze the facts, the bottom line requires the property division to be equitable between the parties based upon our statutory factors. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5). Under these facts, we remain convinced that the equalization payment is equitable for both parties.

Section 598.21(5) permits an unequal assignment of marital debt when the result is equitable in light of the parties’ circumstances, including their earning capacity and retirement savings.

In Re the Marriage of Laurie Dee Haldeman and Kurt Preston Haldeman Upon the Petition of Laurie Dee Haldeman, N/K/A Laur · filed 2014-07-30(5)

Upon review, we determine, despite the $0 marital debt assigned to Laurie, the outcome regarding the assignment of marital debt is equitable. Kurt’s short-term earning capacity and accumulated retirement savings are significantly greater than Laurie’s, allowing him to easily pay the debt assigned to him.

Section 598.21 excludes student loan debt from marital liabilities when one spouse incurs it after separation for an education that does not benefit the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Lori Lynn Hatch and Timothy Loren Hatch Upon the Petition of Lori Lynn Hatch, N/K/A Lori Lynn Schw · filed 2014-11-13

There is no evidence before us that Lori’s education serves to benefit Tim. Lori anticipates her yearly wages will not increase over her last full-time position as a result of her education, so it will not lower Tim’s support obligations. We disagree that the district court’s award of half of Lori’s student debt to Tim is fair and equitable. We therefore modify the order by subtracting the debt— $51,522—from the district court’s calculation of Lori’s net marital assets and liabilities and modify the equalization payment calculations accordingly.

Section 598.21 requires marital debts, including a promissory note owed to a spouse’s parents, to be assigned to a party in the property division.

In Re the Marriage of Cheryl Lynn Thomas and Steven Allen Thomas Upon the Petition of Cheryl Lynn Thomas, petitioner-app · filed 2017-06-21(1), (5)

The promissory note is marital property. ... As marital property, it is divisible property. See Schriner, 695 N.W.2d at 496. As divisible property, it must be assigned to a party. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (“[T]he court shall divide the property of the parties . . . .”), (5) (“The court shall divide all property . . . .”).

Section 598.21(5) requires an equitable division of marital property based on the parties’ net worth at trial, excluding speculative future debts.

In Re the Marriage of Marsha Kay Hiller and Steven Mark Nelsen Upon the Petition of Marsha Kay Hiller, petitioner-appell · filed 2017-11-08(5)

When a couple divorces, Iowa law requires an equitable division of marital property. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5). ... Because we remove $32,000 in debt from Steven’s net worth, we modify the decree to order Steven to pay Marsha $16,000 to equalize the division of the parties’ property.

Premarital debts belong in the divisible estate and are not set aside before the equitable distribution calculation.

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

Iowa Code section 598.21 requires the court to divide “all property, except inherited property or gifts received or expected by one party, equitably between the parties.” ... It follows that the setting aside of premarital debts also would be contrary to our distribution scheme.

Section 598.21(5) permits inclusion of medical school debt in the property division when most of the debt arose during the marriage and the resulting education benefited the marital finances.

In re The Marriage of Sokol · filed 2022-08-17(5)

Given these facts, we determine that equity requires Rachael’s medical school student loan debt be included in the property division.

Section 598.21(5) allows a court to divide marital property and debt between spouses, but the division does not change third-party creditors’ rights against either spouse.

In re the Marriage of Towne · filed 2021-07-21(5)

Of course, our ruling does not change or create rights of Larry or Angela’s third-party creditors. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (2019) (allowing the court to divide the marital estate only “between the parties”); Smela v. Smela, 367 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) (noting the court “has no jurisdiction in a divorce proceeding to adjudicate the rights of any party other than the husband and wife”). Those creditors shall have the same rights they had before this ruling in terms of pursuing Larry or Angela for any of the children’s student loan debts.

Section 598.21(5) permits exclusion of a debt owed to a spouse’s wholly owned corporation from the property division when the corporation is not separately valued and the debt is effectively owed to that spouse.

In re Marriage of Groenedyk · filed 2025-01-09(5)

But that does not mean it was equitable to include the $290,558 debt to the corporation—which was not separately valued by the district court—in the division since the parties and their accountant agreed that Mark would be repaying that money to himself.

Section 598.21(5) permits an equitable division that assigns investment debt to the spouse who receives the investments purchased with that debt.

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

But she offered to take on the debt because she wanted the benefit of all of the investments made with that debt. That compromise was equitable.

The premarital nature of a spouse’s student loan debt is one factor in equitable property division and does not automatically entitle the other spouse to a credit for payments made during marriage.

In Re Marriage of Meester · filed 2026-01-07(5)(b)

Tyrus’s request for a credit rests on the premarital nature of Kelsey’s student loan debt. But that is just one factor for the court to consider in making an equitable distribution of property.

Section 598.21 permits a judicial lien granted in a dissolution decree to defeat the Iowa homestead exemption to the extent of the lien’s value.

Matter of Sullivan · filed 1988-02-22

Thus the effect of a judicial lien granted pursuant to a dissolution decree is to render the otherwise exempt homestead property not exempt to the extent of the value of such judicial lien.

Section 598.21 permits equitable division of marital property and remains a special statutory declaration allowing a dissolution decree lien to reach an otherwise exempt homestead despite amendments to the section.

In re Knoll · filed 1991-02-21

This Court believes the holding of Kobriger, that § 598.21 constitutes a special declaration of statute, would not be changed by any of the modifications or amendments made to § 598.21 since 1978 when the Kobriger case was decided.

Section 598.21 allows a judicial lien granted in a dissolution decree to defeat the Iowa homestead exemption to the extent of the lien’s value.

Matter of MacKe · filed 1992-01-13(1)

Therefore, the effect of a judicial lien granted pursuant to Iowa Code § 598.21 is to render the otherwise exempt homestead property not exempt to the extent of the value of such lien.

Section 598.21 permits a dissolution court to order sale of a homestead despite the statutory homestead exemption.

In Re Reinders · filed 1992-03-12

I conclude only that the debtor may not claim the homestead as exempt in the face of the state court decree, because § 598.21 creates an exception to the statutory prohibition against judicial sales of homesteads.

Section 598.21(1) authorizes equitable division of marital property but does not automatically impose a lien on a homestead or limit its exemption against a former spouse.

In Re Tendal · filed 2005-03-31(1)

There is nothing in Iowa Code § 598.21 which automatically imposes a lien against homestead property to effectuate an award of alimony or property settlement. Nor does Iowa Code § 598.21 explicitly limit the claims of homestead as against the former spouse.

Section 598.21 permits a dissolution court to impose a judicial lien on homestead property as an “other disposition,” but a cash award does not create a homestead lien unless the decree imposes one.

In Re Heeren · filed 2005-04-11

The “special declaration of statute” exception for Iowa Code sec. 598.21 allows dissolution courts to order the sale or “other disposition” of homestead property. Under Iowa law, “other disposition” includes the creation of a judicial lien. Here, the dissolution court exercised this power and ordered judicial liens on Debt- or’s homestead for the unpaid state and federal income tax debts. It did not similarly order that the $11,000 judgment would be a lien on the homestead real estate. Therefore, Debtor’s homestead is exempt from the automatic attachment of the $11,000 judgment lien.

Section 598.21(1) permits division of pension benefits accumulated during the marriage, but later increases from continued service belong to the earning spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Fuchser · filed 1991-09-24(1)

We next consider factors in Iowa Code section 598.21(1), in the distribution of that portion of the pension which is marital property. ... Any increases in Terry's military pension as a result of his continued Air Force service is entirely his property and not distributable to Paula.

Section 598.21(1)(i) requires consideration of unvested and future pension interests in addition to vested interests when dividing marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Johnston · filed 1992-08-27(1)(i)

Karin values her pension plan at $7,094, but values it only at the amount of her vested contributions. Unvested and future interests are to be considered in addition to vested interests. Iowa Code § 598.21(l)(i) (1991).

Section 598.21(1) treats IPERS retirement benefits as personal property subject to equitable division.

In Re the Marriage of Ruter · filed 1997-03-28(1)

The word property, for the purposes of section 598.21(1), “includes personal and real property.” ... IPERS benefits are by this definition personal property.

Section 598.21(1)(i) allows an IPERS pension to be valued beyond the employee’s vested contributions when dividing marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Scheppele · filed 1994-09-16(1)(i)

However, the value of Marcia’s IPERS pension is not limited to her vested contributions.

Section 598.21(5) requires courts dividing pension benefits to account for the allocation of other marital assets so the overall property division is equitable.

In RE the Marriage of Magdalen C. O'Brien and Dennis R. O'Brien Upon the Petition of Magdalen C. O'Brien · filed 2012-09-21(5)

However, it would also be inappropriate to divide that pension without taking into account the allocation of the other assets.

Section 598.21(5)(i) directs courts to consider pension benefits, including future interests, when dividing marital property equitably.

In Re the Marriage of Anita D. Ghee and William J. Ghee Jr., Upon the Petition of Anita D. Ghee, N/K/A Anita Diane Arnol · filed 2014-07-30(5)(i)

District courts are directed to consider pension benefits in dividing marital property, including future interests. Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(i).

Section 598.21(5)(i) contemplates equitable distribution of vested and unvested future benefits.

In Re the Marriage of Angela Whitehurst and Kevin Whitehurst Upon the Petition of Angela Whitehurst, and Concerning Kevi · filed 2014-06-25(5)(i)

Section 598.21(5)(i) contemplates the equitable distribution of both vested and unvested future benefits.

Section 598.21 authorizes a court to divide a pension between the spouses, but does not authorize naming their children as contingent alternate payees.

In re the Marriage of Dow · filed 2018-04-18

We disagree that Daniel should be required to identify Shantel a contingent annuitant or the parties’ children as contingent alternate payees because Shantel is sufficiently protected by the other pension provisions, and because we only have authority to divide the pension between the spouses. See Iowa Code § 598.21.

Section 598.21(5) treats pensions as marital assets subject to equitable division without requiring the receiving spouse to show a need for future benefits.

In Re the Marriage of Patricia Sue Tripp and Craig Alan Tripp Upon the Petition of Patricia Sue Tripp, petitioner-appell · filed 2017-07-19(5)

As stated above, pensions are marital assets and they are subject to division in an equitable manner. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (2011).

Section 598.21(5) includes the marital share of a military pension in equitable property division even when pension payments have not begun.

In re the Marriage of Monahan · filed 2018-09-26(5)

We modify the decree to provide Jeff’s pension should be classified as marital property with Ronae to receive one-half of the marital share of the pension as determined by the Benson formula.

Section 598.21(5) requires equitable division of retirement benefits; the refund value of an IPERS defined-benefit plan does not establish its present value without actuarial evidence.

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

Because the refund value of Holly’s IPERS benefits does not accurately reflect their present value, the district court did not accurately value Holly’s IPERS benefits when it valued the account at the refund value. It simply could not determine the present value without the necessary actuarial evidence, which neither party provided.

Section 598.21(5) permits a spouse’s marital share of a retirement account to be distributed by QDRO when a cash property equalization payment would exceed the other spouse’s financial resources.

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

For the reasons stated above, Angela’s marital share of the John Deere TDSP should be paid by a QDRO. Based on the record, Jeremy does not have the financial resources to pay such a large amount in a cash equalization payment. We therefore remand to the district court for entry of a QDRO to Angela in the amount of $42,434.38.

Section 598.21(5) does not subject future payments from a chapter 411 ordinary disability benefit to equitable property division because they replace future income.

Marriage of Matthew Tait Miller and Karri Ann Miller · filed 2021-11-19(5)

We conclude that future payments from a chapter 411 ordinary disability benefit are income and not property and thus not subject to equitable division because they replace income that an individual would have earned if not for an injury causing the disability.

Section 598.21 requires equitable division of marital property, including the cash value of a life insurance policy.

In re the Marriage of Nardone · filed 2022-10-05(1)

Under Iowa dissolution law, all marital property must be equitably divided unless inherited or gifted. ... We therefore modify the decree and require John to pay Kelli one-half of the life insurance cash value, an additional $4489.50 in equalization of assets and liabilities.

Section 598.21(2) generally keeps gifts and inheritances separate, and receiving them does not justify a smaller share of marital assets merely because they were not spent on family needs.

In re the Marriage of Wood · filed 1982-08-26(2)

The legislature, in enacting the inheritance provision, clearly manifested its intention that the public policy of this state be that gifts and inherited property should not be considered a part of the marital assets. ... The intention of the legislature cannot be defeated by awarding to a party who has had the good fortune to receive a large gift or inheritance a smaller proportion of the marital assets than he or she would otherwise have received.

Section 598.21(2) excludes gifts and inheritances from property division unless excluding them would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Oler · filed 1989-11-27(2)

Generally, gifts or inheritances received by a party during the marriage are not subject to a property division unless the failure to do so would be inequitable to the other party.

Inherited or gifted property belongs to the recipient and is excluded from property division unless excluding it would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Griffin · filed 1984-09-06(1)(c)

In 1977 the Iowa legislature provided that inherited or gifted property is the property of the person receiving it and is not subject to property division except upon a finding that a failure to divide such property is inequitable to the other party or the children of the marriage. Iowa Code § 598.21(l)(c) is substantially a codification of the principles established by case law.

Section 598.21(2) permits division of inherited or gifted property when refusing to divide it would be inequitable to the other spouse or children, so discovery about such property is relevant to the required balancing of equities.

In Re the Marriage of Meredith · filed 1986-10-15(2)

Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erroneously disregarded the relevance of this inquiry to major issues in the case, particularly the balancing of equities required by the statutory prescription that even inherited or gifted property may be divided if failure to do so would result in inequity to the other party or children.

Section 598.21(2) excludes property gifted to either spouse before or during marriage from division unless exclusion would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Dahl · filed 1987-12-02(2)

Iowa Code section 598.-21(2) provides in part that gifts received by either party prior to or during the course of the marriage are not subject to property division unless the refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or the children.

Inherited property is excluded from division unless excluding it would be inequitable.

In Re the Marriage of Huffman · filed 1990-01-25(2)

Inherited property is not subject to a property division except upon a finding that refusal to do so would be inequitable. Iowa Code § 598.21(2) (1989). The circumstances of this case do not warrant deviation from the general rule, and the district court correctly awarded Clell his 1988 $14,-457 inheritance from his sister.

Inherited or gifted property must be set aside for the recipient spouse unless doing so would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Johnson · filed 1990-08-13(2)

All of the marital property must be divided equitably; however, the inherited or gifted property of each party must be set aside for that party unless not dividing such property would be inequitable to the other party or the children.

Section 598.21(2) excludes a gift to one spouse from property division unless excluding it would be inequitable; a deed naming both spouses does not by itself establish that the donor intended a gift to both.

In Re the Marriage of Martens · filed 1987-03-31(2)

Obviously, these provisions are not applicable where the gifts are made to both parties. ... Although the fact that Frederick’s name is on the deed is relevant to this inquiry, we do not find it determinative.

Section 598.21(2) generally excludes inherited property from division unless excluding it would be unjust to the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Van Brocklin · filed 1991-01-29(2)

Section 598.21(2) is substantially a codification of principles established by previous case law. ... Under the circumstances of this case, we are unable to hold the premise as enunciated in the Thomas case (i.e., inherited property is not subject to division) must yield to the exception that its application would be unjust.

Section 598.21(2) generally reserves inherited property to the inheriting spouse, and depositing inherited funds in the other spouse’s account does not itself make them divisible marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Higgins · filed 1993-09-02(2)

Iowa Code section 598.21(2) provides inheritances are to be retained in the dissolution by the recipient, absent a finding of inequity. ... The deposit of this portion of Dennis's inheritance into Mary's credit union account does not deem the funds a marital asset subject to division.

Section 598.21(2) excludes stock gifted to one spouse alone from property division.

In Re the Marriage of Alexander · filed 1991-10-29(2)

We agree with the trial court determination that this stock was a gift to Gordon alone and that it is not subject to property division. Iowa Code § 598.21(2) (1991).

A spouse may be reimbursed for a gift received during a short marriage even after depositing it in a joint account and using it to pay household bills, when the spending significantly benefited the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Harberts · filed 1992-09-29(1)

Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (1991) states “the court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received by one party, equitably between the parties.” ... Based on the short length of the marriage and the purposes for which the money was spent, we find the district court did not err in awarding Connie reimbursement for the gift she received during the marriage.

Section 598.21(2) sets aside gifts and inheritances to the recipient unless doing so is inequitable; donor intent and the circumstances of the gift or inheritance control, rather than joint title alone.

In Re the Marriage of Hoffman · filed 1992-09-29(2)

However, we now deem Butler to be contrary to Iowa Code section 598.21(2) (1991), which provides that gifts and inheritances are always to be retained in the dissolution by the recipient, absent a finding of inequity. More specifically, the intent of the donor and the circumstances of the gift or inheritance control whether the gift or inheritance is to be set off in the dissolution. The form of the acknowledgment, i.e., joint tenancy, is not controlling.

Section 598.21(2) permits a court to consider that homestead equity came from a gift when deciding whether a lien for the other spouse is equitable.

In Re the Marriage of Cupples · filed 1995-03-30(2)

Nearly all of the equity in the household resulted from a gift from William’s mother. We can consider this factor in determining if it was equitable to set aside a lien to Kelly.

Section 598.21(2) generally excludes gifts and inheritances from property division unless exclusion would be inequitable to the other spouse; the court may consider marital spending on the property and the other spouse’s financial support when deciding equity.

In Re the Marriage of Clark · filed 1998-02-25(2)

Generally, gifts or inheritances received by a party during the marriage are not subject to a property division unless the failure to do so would be inequitable to the other party. ... We consider the substantial monies advanced during the marriage for improvements to and maintenance of the home, as well as the fact David supported the family financially during the time Linda cared for her father, in finding the division made by the trial court was equitable.

Under section 598.21(2), proceeds of a child’s life insurance policy payable solely to one spouse are gifted or inherited property excluded from division unless exclusion would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Goodwin · filed 2000-02-16(2)

The evidence clearly establishes that Paul designated his mother as the only beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Therefore, we conclude that the proceeds constitute a gift to or inheritance by Sue. ... Accordingly, any remaining proceeds should be excluded from the property distribution unless it would be inequitable to do so.

Section 598.21(2) does not make the way spouses title or hold gifted or inherited property controlling when deciding whether to divide it.

In Re the Marriage of Fall · filed 1999-02-24(2)

The manner a married couple titles or holds inherited or gifted property is not a controlling factor in assessing its treatment as a gift or inheritance under section 598.21(2).

Section 598.21(2) does not treat a spouse’s payment of the other spouse’s premarital debts as a gift merely because the payment benefits that spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Dean · filed 2002-01-09(2)

We disagree with Vicki and the district court that the $70,000 should be set-aside to Vicki as a gift and should not be looked at as property Gary brought into this short-term marriage.

Section 598.21(6) generally excludes gifted and inherited property from division unless excluding it would be inequitable to the other spouse or children.

In re the Marriage of Jeffrey C. Dean and Melissa A. Dean · filed 2014-03-12(6)

However, gifted and inherited property is generally not subject to a property division “except upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the marriage.” Iowa Code § 598.21(6).

Section 598.21(6) generally excludes inherited property from division, and a spouse may receive a credit for inherited funds contributed to the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Amanda Kreuder and Rodney Foster Upon the Petition of Amanda Kreuder, petitioner-appellee/cross-ap · filed 2014-04-30(6)

Gifts and inherited property are not considered martial property and are not normally subject to division unless the court finds it inequitable to the other party not to divide the property. ... Because it was Amanda’s substantial infusion of cash to the marriage, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Amanda should receive a credit for at least a portion of her inheritance.

Section 598.21(6) excludes a recent inheritance kept separate from marital assets from the property division when division is not needed to avoid inequity.

In Re the Marriage of Sandi K. Meurer and Charles H. Meurer Upon the Petition of Sandi K. Meurer, and Concerning Charles · filed 2014-08-27(6)

Specifically, the inheritance Charles received from Eda should not be considered marital property and is excluded from division.

Section 598.21(6) permits inherited property to remain with the inheriting spouse when the factors favoring division do not outweigh the factors against it.

In Re the Marriage of Kathleen Kay Koether and Gregory Scott Koether Upon the Petition of Kathleen Kay Koether, and Conc · filed 2014-11-26(6)

Though the length of the marriage and relationship with Greg’s mother weigh in Kathy’s favor, they do not overcome the weight of the remaining factors against her. We affirm the district court’s assessment of the timber land as Greg’s individual interest.

Section 598.21(6) allows inherited property to be set aside to the recipient spouse when failure to divide it causes no inequity to the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Lorraine Ruth Rohrbaugh and Rod Charles Rohrbaugh Upon the Petition of Lorraine Ruth Rohrbaugh, an · filed 2015-09-10(6)

On our de novo review, we are persuaded the failure to divide these inherited funds worked no inequity.

Section 598.21(6) permits an inheritance used substantially for family purposes to be included in an equitable property division.

In Re the Marriage of Heather Leigh Herman and Mark Anthony Herman Upon the Petition of Heather Leigh Herman, and Concer · filed 2015-10-28(6)

Under the circumstances here, including an inheritance to Heather, which was not set aside,1 we find no failure to do equity.

Property gifted or inherited jointly by both spouses is included in the marital estate, so the exclusion and inequity inquiry for a gift or inheritance to one spouse does not apply.

In RE the Marriage of Rachel A. McDermott and Stephen J. McDermott Upon the Petition of Rachel A. McDermott · filed 2013-03-01(6)

We find the gifted or inherited property identified by Stephen was neither a gift nor inheritance to him alone. Instead, it transferred to Stephen and Rachel jointly. Therefore, the value of this property was properly included in the marital estate, and we need not apply the equitable factors to determine whether it would be unjust to exclude from the marital estate property gifted to one spouse.

Section 598.21(6) permits a court to divide property gifted to one spouse when excluding it from division would be inequitable in light of the circumstances of the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Frank Frederick Wagner and Teresa Regan Wagner Upon the Petition of Frank Frederick Wagner, and Co · filed 2016-02-24(6)

But our analysis does not end there. The exclusion of property given solely to Frank under section 598.21(5) “is not absolute. Iowa has a hybrid system that permits the court to divide inherited and gifted property if equity demands in light of the circumstances of a spouse or the children.” Schriner, 695 N.W.2d at 496; see Iowa Code § 598.21(6).

Section 598.21(6) generally excludes gifted property, including its appreciation, from division unless exclusion would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children.

In Re the Marriage of Marcy Lea Kerkhoff and Neal Kenneth Kerkhoff Upon the Petition of Marcy Lea Kerkhoff, petitioner-a · filed 2016-08-31(6)

Property inherited by, or gifted to, either party is generally not subject to division, regardless of whether the property was inherited or gifted prior to, or during, the course of the marriage. Iowa Code § 598.21(5), (6). Nonetheless, inherited or gifted property may be divided as marital property “upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the marriage.” Id. ... We decline to modify the dissolution decree to award Marcy a share of the appreciation of Neal’s gifted stock.

Gifts made for one spouse’s benefit, including gifts from the other spouse, are excluded from the divisible marital estate unless exclusion would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of William F. Amling and Ann M. Amling Upon the Petition of William F. Amling, and Concerning Ann M. · filed 2014-08-27(6)

Generally, gifts for the benefit of one spouse, even gifts from the other spouse, are separate property excluded from the divisible marital estate.

A claimed gift remains subject to division when the evidence does not show it was intended for one spouse alone.

In Re the Marriage of William John Wright and Krystle Marie Wright Upon the Petition of William John Wright, petitioner- · filed 2016-08-17(5)

Finally, even if it was a gift, there was no credible evidence the gift was intended to be given solely to William.

Inherited property is subject to division only when excluding it would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children; premarital property is instead a factor in the equitable division.

In Re the Marriage of Julie Ann Miller and Claude Earl Miller Upon the Petition of Julie Ann Miller, N/K/A Julie Ann Min · filed 2016-10-12(6)

Considering the factors outlined above along with the factors to be considered in making a property division generally, see Iowa Code § 598.21(5), we conclude that excluding Claude’s inheritance from the divisible property is not inequitable to Julie. Including the proceeds from the sale of Julie’s home in the property division while not including Claude’s inheritance does not, in itself, result in inequity. After all, the legislature has distinguished the two. Compare id. § 598.21(5)(b) (listing premarital property as a factor to be considered in making an equitable property division), with § 598.21(6) (stating inherited property is subject to division only if refusing to divide the property is inequitable).

Section 598.21(6) permits division of inherited property when excluding it from the marital estate would be inequitable under the spouses’ circumstances.

In Re the Marriage of Janet McMillan and Gary Jones Upon the Petition of Janet McMillan, petitioner-appellee/cross-appel · filed 2016-10-26(6)

The exclusion of Janet’s inherited property under section 598.21(5) “is not absolute. Iowa has a hybrid system that permits the court to divide inherited . . . property if equity demands in light of the circumstances of a spouse . . . .” See id.; see also Iowa Code § 598.21(6). ... Finally, as the fifth factor does not support Gary’s cause, we decline to modify the district court’s ruling regarding Janet’s inheritance.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of inherited home equity when the other spouse’s contributions and the parties’ shared finances make exclusive retention plainly unfair.

In Re the Marriage of Elizabeth A. Repp-Danis and Michele M. Repp-Danis Upon the Petition of Elizabeth A. Repp-Danis, an · filed 2017-03-08(6)

Additionally, the parties never used separate accounts, never partitioned their finances, income, or property, and treated their finances as an open cash register to fund a lifestyle beyond their means. It would be “plainly unfair” to leave the equity of the house for Beth’s enjoyment alone. Muelhaupt, 439 N.W.2d at 659. The majority of the factors weigh in Michele’s favor and we hold the district court fairly divided the equity in the house.

Section 598.21(6) allows a home built with one spouse’s inherited funds to be set aside when exclusion is not inequitable to the other spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Linda Kay Spence N/K/A Linda Kay Weir and Todd Allen Spence Upon the Petition of Linda Kay Spence · filed 2017-04-19(6)

We acknowledge the parties had a relatively long marriage—about twenty- six years—and had lived in the home for approximately eight years at the time of the dissolution, but we are not convinced it is inequitable or unjust to set the entire value of the home aside.

Section 598.21(6) does not require an offset from marital property for inherited funds voluntarily spent for the family when no remaining asset is identified or accounting provided.

In Re the Marriage of Nicole Marie Fluent and Grant Jerome Fluent Upon the Petition of Nicole Marie Fluent, and Concerni · filed 2017-06-07(6)

On these facts, we find that allocating $74,000 of a marital asset solely to Grant would be inequitable to Nicole. See Iowa Code § 598.21(6).

Section 598.21(5) permits division of inherited property when setting it aside for the inheriting spouse would be unjust.

In Re the Marriage of Jessica K Rogers and Jason P. Rogers Upon the Petition of Jessica K. Rogers, N/K/A Jessica K. Ayer · filed 2017-10-25(5)

Jason argues the district court improperly divided as marital property $106,000 he received as inheritance from his aunt. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (“The court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received . . . by one party, equitably between the parties.”). ... Because it would be unjust to set aside Jason’s inheritance, we affirm the district court’s division of the inheritance as marital property.

Section 598.21(6) generally sets inherited property aside from equitable division unless doing so would be unjust; when an asset was bought with both inherited and marital funds, only the inherited contribution is set aside.

In re the Marriage of Woodhouse · filed 2018-09-12(6)

Generally, inherited property is not subject to division. See Iowa Code § 598.21(6). The only exception is where the court finds that failing to do so would be unjust. See id. Therefore, the court must first set aside the inherited property before making an equitable division of the marital assets. See In re Marriage of Sparks, 323 N.W.2d 264, 267 (Iowa Ct. App. 1982). ... The proper amount of the farm’s value to set off as Mary Lou’s inheritance is $208,000.

Section 598.21(6) permits identifiable inherited funds to be set off from property division even when they have been commingled in a joint account.

In re the Marriage of Tassinari · filed 2018-11-07(6)

Although the funds paid towards the tractor’s purchase, which Sarah claims as inherited funds, came from comingled joint checking account funds, the source of those funds is readily apparent; the source of the funds were Sarah’s inheritance. We find no error on the court’s part in setting off $40,644.96 from the property division as Sarah’s inheritance.

Section 598.21(6) generally excludes inheritances and gifts from property division unless leaving them with the recipient spouse would be inequitable.

In re the Marriage of Dorr · filed 2019-02-06(6)

Considering all the factors, we determine the property division was fair under the circumstances of the case. We find there is no inequity in the district court setting aside Linda’s and Fred’s respective inheritances and gifts from the property division.

Section 598.21(6) permits an offset for inherited funds traceably used to reduce marital debt, but the offset is limited to the net amount received after liquidation costs that did not benefit the marriage.

In re the Marriage of Sterner · filed 2019-03-06(6)

We do not believe Mary should share the responsibility for the funds Robert forfeited when he liquidated the IRA; neither Mary nor the marriage received any benefit from these lost funds.

Section 598.21(6) excludes inherited property from division unless refusing to divide it would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children.

In re the Marriage of Wilson · filed 2019-11-27(6)

We see nothing inequitable about the court’s refusal to divide the inheritance.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of appreciation on inherited property when marital funds and the other spouse’s efforts contributed to the increase in value.

In re the Marriage of Kirsch · filed 2019-11-27(6)

Considering the parties’ use of the account—joint funds flowing in and marital expenses paid out of the account, Heidi’s active management of the account, and Heidi’s economic support of the family while William did not work, we find the appreciation in value of the account above the inherited amount during the marriage to be a marital asset subject to equal division.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of property purchased with funds gifted to one spouse when refusing to divide it would be inequitable.

In re the Marriage of Agan · filed 2018-11-07(6)

Our analysis does not yet end because property purchased with the gifted monies may be divided if it is inequitable to refuse to divide it.

Section 598.21(6) permits gifted shares to be included in the property division when excluding them would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In re the Marriage of Friest · filed 2019-03-20(6)

First, however, Brent argues the shares were gifts and should not have been included in the equitable-division calculation. We disagree. ... Ultimately, we find to exclude the shares from the property division would be inequitable, and we therefore affirm the district court’s inclusion of the shares in its property division.

Section 598.21(6) permits gifted property to be divided when excluding it would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In re the Marriage of Parlee · filed 2019-07-24(6)

We agree the firearms should be included as marital property because it would be inequitable to exclude them.

Section 598.21(6) permits part of a gifted property’s value to be included in the marital estate when the spouses’ joint efforts make that division equitable.

In re the Marriage of Barnhouse · filed 2020-01-09(6)

Even with a care agreement, we find equity rests by setting aside 40% of the net farm value as a gift to Joel and considering 60% of the net value as marital property resulting from the parties’ joint efforts in this long-term marriage.

Section 598.21(6) leaves a gift to one spouse with that spouse when refusing to divide it is not inequitable to the other spouse or the children.

In re the Marriage of Milne · filed 2020-09-02(6)

Second, we find nothing inequitable in nondivision of the refund.

Section 598.21(6) does not treat interest saved through a no-interest loan from a spouse’s parents as a gift or inheritance exempt from property division.

In re the Marriage of Bojanski · filed 2020-11-30(6)

Any interest saved because Marjorie’s parents offered the parties a no-interest loan is not properly classified as a “gift or inheritance” pursuant to section 598.21(6).

Section 598.21(6) allows inherited property and assets purchased with traceable inherited funds to be set aside to the inheriting spouse unless doing so would be inequitable.

In re the Marriage of Bohac · filed 2021-05-26(6)

The assets contained in or purchased with funds flowing from Kevin’s inheritance were traceable to his father’s estate and properly set aside to Kevin.

Section 598.21(6) generally excludes inherited property from division when determining an equitable property distribution.

In re the Marriage of Tullis · filed 2022-04-13(6)

After setting aside to Cathy the property she inherited, we find the division of property is equitable. See Iowa Code § 598.21(6) (providing that generally inherited property is not subject to division). After setting off to Cathy her inherited property, the net award of marital property is substantially equal.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of appreciation in inherited property when the spouses’ joint efforts increased its value, while setting aside the value inherited by one spouse.

In re Marriage of Creese · filed 2024-07-03(6)

We agree with the district court that the “joint efforts of the parties increased the value of this asset considerably and it is the primary asset to which the parties contributed during the marriage.” As a result, we conclude the court acted equitably in setting aside $25,000 from the value of the home to Phillip,3 rather than one-third of its $300,000 value.

Section 598.21(6) excludes gifts to one spouse from property division unless exclusion is inequitable, while gifts intended for both spouses are divisible.

In re the Marriage of Pleggenkuhle · filed 2020-01-23(6)

But the evidence in this record shows the parents intended their gifts, when they were made, to assist both Jesse and Kimberly. ... We affirm the district court’s conclusion the gifts were divisible in the marital estate.

Section 598.21(6) excludes property gifted to one spouse from equitable division unless exclusion would be inequitable to the other spouse or the children of the marriage.

In re the Marriage of Davis · filed 2022-03-02(6)

If an asset was a gift to one of the spouses, it is excluded from the equitable distribution scheme. Iowa Code § 598.21(6) (2019). But an exception to exclusion arises if refusing to divide the gifted property is inequitable to the other spouse or to the children of the marriage.

Section 598.21(6) generally exempts inherited and gifted property from division in a dissolution unless the exemption would be inequitable.

In re the Marriage of George · filed 2022-12-21(6)

But, while “premarital funds” are properly part of the property divided in a dissolution proceeding, Iowa Code section 598.21(5) and (6) (2019) require us to exempt inherited and gifted property from the typical property division in a dissolution unless doing so would be inequitable.

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

In re Marriage of Hurm · filed 2024-10-30(6)

And even if part or all of the marital home was a “gift,” we still find including it in the distribution is appropriate. While we generally do not distribute gifted property, see Iowa Code § 598.21(5), there is an exception when the court finds “that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the marriage,” id. § 598.21(6).

Section 598.21(6) permits a court to divide the increase in value of gifted property when excluding that increase would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In re Marriage of Naeve · filed 2025-03-19(6)

Under these circumstances, we find nothing inequitable about the district court’s decision to treat the post-2018 increase in value of the gifted rental property as marital property.

Section 598.21(6) permits division of inherited property when excluding it would be inequitable to the other spouse.

In re the Marriage of Christiansen and Spencer · filed 2025-05-07(6)

So while property inherited before a marriage is generally not subject to division, a court may do so when failing to divide would result in inequity to the other party.

Section 598.21(6) excludes gifted property from division when allocating marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Michael Girres and Jessica Girres Upon the Petition of Michael Girres, and Concerning Jessica Girr · filed 2014-06-11(6)

The court’s findings and conclusions reflect that the court assigned less equity to Jessica than could have been assigned, given Jessica’s failure to adequately contest Michael’s assertion that the home was largely a gift from his grandfather. See Iowa Code §598.21(6) (stating gifted property is not subject to division).

Before its 1980 amendment, section 598.21 did not provide for consideration of antenuptial agreements in alimony or property division decisions.

Kop v. McGill · filed 1995-03-29

Prior to 1980, however, section 598.21 did not provide for the consideration of an antenuptial agreement in alimony or property division cases.

Section 598.21(3)(i) permits consideration of an antenuptial agreement when determining alimony.

In Re the Marriage of Christensen · filed 1995-12-22(3)(i)

Moreover, we may consider the terms of an antenuptial agreement. Iowa Code § 598.21(3)(i) (1993). ... We find Sandy’s enhanced property distribution from her antenuptial agreement diminishes her need for short-term rehabilitative alimony.

Section 598.21(1) permits a court to consider a prenuptial agreement when dividing property equitably.

In Re the Marriage of Applegate · filed 1997-05-29(1)

Iowa Code section 598.21(1) expressly permits the court to consider the provisions of a prenuptial agreement when deciding equitable property division issues.

Section 598.21(3)(i) allows a court to consider a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony when deciding spousal support, but does not require the court to enforce the waiver.

In Re the Marriage of Van Regenmorter · filed 1998-10-29(3)(i)

The district court first recognized the waiver of spousal support provision in the agreement but found it not binding and considered it with the other factors of section 598.21(3) in making the spousal support award. The district court correctly followed the law in this regard. There is no mandate the alimony waiver be enforced; rather, because of the time frame when it was drafted, it is merely permissible it be waived.

Section 598.21(5)(k) permits a court to consider a postnuptial agreement when dividing property, but the court may reject or adopt its terms in whole or in part according to equity.

In re the Marriage of Hansen · filed 2018-10-10(5)(k)

Accordingly, in applying the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(5), the district court may consider the terms of a postnuptial agreement, ignore its terms as inequitable, or adopt its terms in full or in part.

Section 598.21(5)(k) requires consideration of a written property distribution agreement, but the court may award property differently when the resulting division is equitable.

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

Section 598.21(5)(K) provides that the district court shall consider “[a]ny written agreement made by the parties concerning property distribution.” The court has the authority to reject a stipulation if it is unfair or contrary to law. ... Though the district court did not adhere to the parties’ stipulation of who should receive the marital home, we find the distribution of assets equitable.

Section 598.21(3) allows alimony to support a spouse with lesser earning capacity at a standard as close as possible to the marital standard while preserving a comparable standard for the paying spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Hayne · filed 1983-04-08(3)

The equitable principles that we have recognized and enforced in the past require, in dissolution cases, that the spouse with the lesser earning capacity is entitled to be supported, for a reasonable time, in a manner as closely resembling the standards existing during the marriage as possible, to the extent that that is possible without destroying the right of the party providing the income to enjoy at least a comparable standard of living as well. But once the dependent spouse’s standard of living is assured, there is no reason, in equity, for the, supporting spouse to provide still more.

Section 598.21 permits courts to consider assets transferred to evade spousal support when dividing property and assessing ability to pay alimony.

In Re the Marriage of Cerven · filed 1983-06-05

We hold that the $40,000 transfer to Duane was merely a sham gift made in an attempt to shield Oscar’s assets from his present and future support obligations. Consequently, in reviewing the property settlement and in assessing Oscar’s ability to pay alimony, we consider the additional $40,000 which he would have had, but for the transfer in his attempt to escape his obligation to support Emelyn.

Section 598.21(8) allows modification of a finite alimony award after payments end when the original decree awarded alimony and the applicant shows a substantial change in circumstances.

In re the Marriage of Marshall · filed 1986-10-15(8)

Therefore, we conclude the court retains the power to modify even a finite alimony award at any time when such an award was included in the initial decree. Any such modification is governed by Iowa Code section 598.21(8).

Section 598.21(3) does not justify continuing alimony after a short marriage solely to improve the standard of living of a spouse who is self-supporting.

In Re Marriage of Luebbert · filed 1986-11-26(3)

Because the alimony issue was not final in the original decree, we must assess the order under the dictates of Iowa Code § 598.21 (1985). ... We determine Joan’s desire for a better standard of living than she can provide for herself does not justify continuing the alimony award in a short-term marriage.

Section 598.21(3) requires courts to consider its listed factors when deciding whether to award alimony.

In Re the Marriage of Sell · filed 1989-11-27(3)

The discretionary award of alimony is made after considering those factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3).

Section 598.21(3)(f) allows alimony sufficient to maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of Wiedemann · filed 1987-03-18(3)(f)

Judith is entitled to an amount sufficient to allow her to maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable to that she enjoyed during the marriage. See Iowa Code § 598.21(3)(f).

Section 598.21(3) supplies the alimony criteria used to determine the amount of periodic alimony awarded from a spouse’s pension and retirement benefits.

Petition of Sturtz · filed 1987-08-26(3)

We have applied the general criteria governing the proper amount of alimony to be awarded in a particular case, see Iowa Code § 598.21(3)(1985), to these figures, and conclude that Sue should be entitled to receive, as her portion of these benefits, $250 per month in the form of periodic alimony.

Section 598.21(3)(e) and (f) require courts setting permanent alimony to consider the recipient spouse’s earning capacity and ability to become self-supporting, including available work the spouse could take.

In Re the Marriage of Wegner · filed 1988-12-21(3)(e), (f)

Correspondingly, when we look to the amount of permanent alimony a payee spouse should receive, if any, we must consider not simply present income, but his or her earning capacity as directed by Iowa Code section 598.21(3).

Section 598.21 permits reimbursement alimony for a spouse whose economic sacrifices during marriage directly increased the other spouse’s future earning capacity through education.

In Re the Marriage of Francis · filed 1989-06-14(1)(e), (3)(h), (3)(j)

These decisions are in harmony with statutes that direct the trial courts to consider such contributions in the awarding of property and spousal support. See Iowa Code §§ 598.21(1)(e), (3)(h) and (j) (1987). ... "Reimbursement" alimony, on the other hand, which is predicated upon economic sacrifices made by one spouse during the marriage that directly enhance the future earning capacity of the other, should not be subject to modification or termination until full compensation is achieved.

Section 598.21(3) requires courts setting alimony to consider the length of the marriage, the spouses’ ages and education, and the recipient’s earning capacity.

In Re the Marriage of Cooper · filed 1989-12-21(3)

The length of this marriage, Lucille’s age, the parties’ respective education levels, and Lucille’s limited earning capacity are all factors to be considered when making an alimony determination. Iowa Code § 598.21(3)a, b, d, e (1989). The record in this case supports an award of alimony of $600 per month and demonstrates Garry has the ability to pay this level of support.

Section 598.21(3) authorizes alimony payments after the paying spouse’s death, though the circumstances may make such payments inappropriate.

In Re the Marriage of Debler · filed 1990-07-18(3)

We hold that Iowa Code section 598.21(3) —the successor to section 598.14 — is equally broad enough to authorize alimony payments after death.

Section 598.21(3) requires courts evaluating spousal support to consider the marriage’s length, the parties’ health and earning capacity, the property division, and the recipient’s prospects for self-support.

In Re the Marriage of Imhoff · filed 1990-08-30(3)

When evaluating the need for an award of spousal support, we take into consideration the length of the marriage, the physical health of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the earning capacity of each party, and the feasibility of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting. Iowa Code § 598.21(3)(a), (b), (e), (e), (f) (1989). The equities in this case clearly support an award of alimony.

Section 598.21(3) permits spousal support for a limited period after considering the spouses' property division, incomes, benefits, and earning capacities.

In Re the Marriage of Brown · filed 1990-09-26(3)

Iowa Code section 598.21(3) permits a court to "grant an order requiring support payments ... for a limited or indefinite length of time after considering" several factors. ... Further, we conclude that ten years of rehabilitative and reimbursement support is sufficient given the large property division and relatively high incomes and benefits received by both parties. We thus modify the trial court's decree and hereby limit spousal support payments to a period of ten years.

Section 598.21(3) requires consideration of the spouses’ earning capacities and other statutory factors in deciding whether permanent alimony is warranted.

In Re the Marriage of Craig · filed 1990-09-26(3)

Considering the parties' respective earning capacities, as well as the other factors detailed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3), we agree with the trial court that permanent alimony is unwarranted.

Section 598.21(3)(b) requires courts to consider the spouses’ physical health when deciding alimony, but a speculative future medical problem does not by itself justify an award.

In Re Marriage of Earsa · filed 1991-11-26(3)(b)

The physical health of the parties is one of the factors required to be considered under section 598.21(3)(b). However, the speculation of a possible future medical problem is not sufficient to justify an award of alimony to K-lyn under the facts of this record.

Section 598.21(3) permits consistent overtime income to be considered when determining a spouse’s income for a spousal support award.

In Re the Marriage of Elbert · filed 1992-09-29(3)

Applying this analysis to the question in the instant case, we hold that overtime income should be considered in establishing net monthly income for the purpose of determining an award of spousal support. William’s overtime has been consistent throughout the past five years; his overtime income is not speculative.

Section 598.21(3) permits alimony after the payor’s death, but the statutory factors may make such payments inequitable.

In Re the Marriage of Weinberger · filed 1993-09-02(3)

We recognize that Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (1989) is broad enough to permit alimony payments after death. ... We find, after considering those factors, especially the ages of the parties and the amount of property awarded to Bernice, that it would be inequitable to require Mike to continue paying alimony after his death.

Section 598.21(3) requires courts setting alimony to consider its listed factors, including the parties’ property distribution and earning capacity, and permits reducing an award after weighing them.

In Re the Marriage of Stark · filed 1995-11-27(3)

After considering the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.21(3), we modify the district court’s alimony award. We determine Larry’s alimony payments should be reduced to $500 per month.

Section 598.21(3)(f) requires the court to consider whether the spouse seeking alimony can support themselves at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.

In Re the Marriage of O'Rourke · filed 1996-02-28(3)(f)

In making this determination we are required to consider “[t]he feasibility of the party seeking maintenance becoming self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.” Iowa Code § 598.21(3)(f).

Section 598.21(3) does not permit consideration of the parties’ premarital relationship when awarding alimony.

In Re the Marriage of Spiegel · filed 1996-09-18(3)

Notably, section 598.21(3) does not include in its list of factors the premarital relationship of the parties. Consequently, even though Sara emphasizes the emotional support she gave A.J. during their lengthy courtship, we give no consideration to this support even though it probably enhanced A.J.’s efforts to build the wealth he now enjoys.

Section 598.21(3) requires the court to consider its listed factors before awarding alimony, including the length of the marriage and the parties’ ability to support themselves.

In Re the Marriage of Crotty · filed 1998-06-24(3)

Before awarding alimony, the district court is required to consider the fac ... tors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (1997).

Section 598.21(3)(j) permits a court to consider a spouse’s responsibility for her children as an other factor when awarding spousal support.

In Re the Marriage of Smith · filed 1998-02-18(3)(j)

The court methodically addressed the criteria justifying an award of spousal support under Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (1995), including length of the marriage, age and health of the parties, distribution of property, the parties’ educational levels, earning capacity, ability to become self-supporting, tax consequences, financial agreements, and other relevant factors unique to the case. Elizabeth’s singular responsibility for her children was clearly an “other factor” considered relevant by the court.

Section 598.21(3) requires courts to consider its listed factors when deciding whether to award alimony.

In Re the Marriage of Anliker · filed 2005-04-01(3)

When deciding to award alimony, the district court must consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.21(3).

Section 598.21(3) requires courts to consider its listed factors when awarding spousal support and allows an award combining traditional and rehabilitative support.

In Re Marriage of Becker · filed 2008-09-12(3)

However, there is nothing in our case law that requires us, or any other court in this state, to award only one type of support. What we are required to do is to consider the factors mandated by the legislature contained in section 598.21(3) when considering a spousal support award.

Section 598.21(3)(j) does not permit considering a spouse's gambling as fault for the breakdown of the marriage when awarding alimony.

In Re Marriage of Olson · filed 2005-09-30(3)(j)

Thus, the consideration of Mary's gambling problem under section 598.21(3)( j ) for the alimony award would be improper in view of the no-fault dissolution concept practiced in this state.

Section 598.21(3) treats a dissolution decree requiring one spouse to pay for the other spouse’s health insurance as modifiable spousal support.

In Re the Marriage of Johnson · filed 2010-04-30(3)

Therefore, we conclude as a matter of law that a provision in a dissolution decree requiring one spouse to provide medical support in the form of health insurance payments to the other spouse is modifiable spousal support under Iowa Code section 598.21(3).

The statutory factors cited under section 598.21(3) guide whether a spousal support award is justified, regardless of how the award is labeled.

In re the Marriage of Koesters · filed 2020-12-16(3)

The district court thoroughly vetted the pertinent statutory factors governing spousal support. See Iowa Code § 598.21(3) (2019). On our de novo review, we find support for the court’s detailed fact findings. Those findings justify an award of spousal support, whatever the award is labeled.

Section 598.21(4) requires child support to be assessed using the relevant factors rather than a fixed percentage of net income.

In Re the Marriage of Anderson · filed 1986-11-26(4)

We agree with Larry’s assertion child support should not be fixed at any set percentage of net income but should be assessed in accordance with the earlier discussed factors.

Child support under section 598.21(4) is assessed using the statutory factors rather than a fixed percentage of income.

In Re Marriage of Mott · filed 1989-05-23(4)

The law clearly' holds support should not be fixed at any set percentage of income but should be assessed in accordance with the factors set out in section 598.21(4).

Section 598.21(4) requires courts setting child support to consider the child’s and both parents’ financial resources, the child’s expected standard of living absent dissolution, day care costs, and the child’s health and educational needs.

In Re the Marriage of Hopkins · filed 1990-01-25(4)

The factors to consider are: the financial resources of the child; the financial resources of both parents; the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had there not been a dissolution; the cost of day care; the physical and emotional health needs of the child; and the child’s educational needs. Iowa Code § 598.21(4).

Section 598.21(4) recognizes that both parents have a legal obligation to support their children.

In Re the Marriage of Schettler · filed 1990-02-22(4)

It is well established both parents have a legal obligation to support their children.

Section 598.21(4) treats a child’s financial resources as one of nine factors in setting child support; gifted assets do not displace parental support when the parents have sufficient means, absent contrary donor intent or other reasons to use the gifts for support.

In Re the Marriage of Hoak · filed 1985-03-20(4)

In determining appropriate child support in the context of a dissolution action, we apply the factors listed in subsection 598.-21(4) to determine whether the gifts to these children should be utilized for their support pursuant to subsection 565A.4(3). There are nine factors to be considered in ordering payments for the support of a minor child; the financial resources of the child is only one factor. Other factors include the financial resources of both parents and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had there not been a dissolution.

Section 598.21(4)(b) requires courts setting child support to consider both parents’ financial resources, including the property award.

In Re the Marriage of Hoag · filed 1985-11-26(4)(b)

In any order requiring child support, the court shall consider with other items the financial resources of both parents.

Section 598.21(4) permits child support to continue during summer months when the children are in the paying parent’s physical care because the other parent’s household expenses continue.

In Re the Marriage of Behn · filed 1986-04-16(4)

The criteria for granting child support set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(4) (1985) are satisfied by this decree. The trial court was not required to suspend payment of child support during the summer months when the children would be in Iowa, since many of Barbara’s expenses of maintaining a home for herself and her children would continue during the summer. The reduced cost of food and incidental expenses would not mandate interruption in support payments.

Section 598.21(4)(b) permits consideration of property awarded to a parent when determining the amount of child support.

In Re the Marriage of Mead · filed 1988-07-27(4)(b)

The property awarded to LaVern is properly considered when evaluating the appropriateness of the amount of child support. Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(b).

Section 598.21(4)(c) considers the standard of living a child would have enjoyed absent dissolution, regardless of whether the child had become accustomed to that standard.

In Re the Marriage of Campbell · filed 1989-11-27(4)(c)

Contrary' to Thomas’s assertion, we look to the standard of living a child would have enjoyed had there not been a dissolution, Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(c), not whether the child was accustomed to a higher standard of living.

Section 598.21(4) obligates both parents to support their children.

In Re the Marriage of Lowry · filed 1989-12-21(4)

It is well established that both parents have a legal obligation to support their children. Iowa Code § 598.21(4); In re Marriage of Fleener, 247 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Iowa 1976). The obligation to support should be apportioned according to the ability of each parent to contribute.

Section 598.21(4)(a) permits a child support award to reflect the standard of living the child would have enjoyed without the dissolution, rather than limiting it to the child’s current needs.

In Re the Marriage of Powell · filed 1991-06-19(4)(a)

Although Iowa Code section 598.-21(4)(a) provides that the child support amount should be reasonable and necessary, the support award is not limited to the actual current needs of the child but may reflect the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had there not been a dissolution.

Section 598.21(4) permits courts to consider parents’ earning capacity as a factor in setting child support.

In Re the Marriage of Drury · filed 1991-08-27(4)

Earning capacity is one of the “other factors” to be considered.

Section 598.21(5) permits a court to create a trust for children’s support, education, and welfare when necessary to protect and promote their best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Antisdel · filed 1991-10-29(5)

The trial court has the authority to create a trust fund to provide for “the support, education and welfare” of the children. Iowa Code § 598.21(5). A trust fund is permissible if necessary to protect and promote the best interests of the children.

Section 598.21(4)(a) permits excluding overtime pay from child-support income when including it would cause substantial injustice by requiring a parent to work overtime to meet the obligation.

In Re the Marriage of Close · filed 1991-10-29(4)(a)

The Iowa Supreme Court has promulgated guidelines for determining a parent's support obligation, and the guidelines are to be strictly followed unless their application would lead to an unjust or inappropriate result. See Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(a) (1991). ... Under the circumstances of this case, we believe that the inclusion of James's overtime pay in a determination of his monthly income would work a substantial injustice. Were we to base his support obligation in part on his overtime pay, we would clearly be requiring him to work overtime to satisfy his obligation.

Lump-sum workers’ compensation settlement proceeds count as income when setting child support under section 598.21(4)(a).

In Re the Marriage of Swan · filed 1995-01-18(4)(a)

Therefore, we hold that Brent’s settlement proceeds should be considered as income in setting his child support obligation.

Section 598.21(4)(a) requires the court to order child medical support through a health benefit plan available to a parent at reasonable cost, including employment-related group health insurance.

In Re the Marriage of See · filed 1997-07-23(4)(a)

This situation falls within the scope of the statute, which imposes a duty on the trial court to order that child medical support be provided if obtainable for a reasonable cost. We modify the decree to require that Joseph shall provide the health benefit plan available to his children through his employer.

Section 598.21 does not require courts applying the child support guidelines to consider the former statutory factors, although those factors may inform discretionary adjustments or departures.

In Re the Marriage of Miller · filed 1991-08-27(4)

With the adoption of guidelines, the court is no longer required to consider the statutory factors. ... However, the factors may be considered when the guidelines require judicial discretion or if the guidelines award would be unjustified or inappropriate.

Section 598.21(4)(a) makes the child support guidelines presumptively correct and requires a finding that their amount is unjust or inappropriate to depart from them.

In Re the Marriage of Foley · filed 1993-06-16(4)(a)

Present section 598.21 has been materially amended and subsection 4(a) now provides that the uniform child support guidelines and criteria should be used to arrive at the amount of support. It also provides a rebuttable presumption that the amount of support resulting from the application of the guidelines is the correct amount to be awarded. These guidelines are mandatory absent a finding by the court that the amount would be unjust or inappropriate.

Section 598.21(4)(a) presumes the guideline child support amount is correct and requires a written finding under specific criteria to depart from it.

State Ex Rel. Schaaf v. Jones · filed 1994-02-25(4)(a)

“There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support which would result from the application of the guidelines prescribed by the supreme court is the correct amount to be awarded.” Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(a) (1993). In order to vary from the guidelines, the court must make a written finding that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under specific criteria.

Section 598.21(4)(a) presumes that guideline child support is correct unless special circumstances justify a deviation.

Gilley v. McCarthy · filed 1991-05-15(4)(a)

McCarthy has failed to present evidence of any special circumstances that would make a monthly support obligation based on the chart for one child unjust or inappropriate. Consequently, he has not rebutted the statutory presumption that the trial court’s application of the percentage amount of 16.8 in the one-child table of the guidelines is correct. Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(a) (Supp.1989).

Section 598.21(4)(a) presumes the guideline child support amount is correct and requires a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate before a court may deviate.

In Re Marriage of Hornung · filed 1991-12-13(4)(a)

We believe the court’s statements shown above do not constitute such a written finding. There is no specific finding that substantial injustice would result to David. In addition, we find no reason from the record to deviate from the guidelines. There is a rebuttable presumption that the guideline amount is the correct amount to be awarded.

Section 598.21(4)(a) does not permit departure from the one-child support guideline merely because other children live in the custodial household or the household receives ADC benefits; those facts do not establish special circumstances making the guideline unjust or inappropriate.

State Ex Rel. Cacek Ex Rel. Cacek v. Cacek · filed 1992-05-13(4)(a)

Thus, we hold that the district court’s deviation from the one-child chart in the guidelines was not supported by a finding of special circumstances that would make application of the one-child chart unjust or inappropriate.

Under section 598.21(4), a parent’s remarriage alone does not justify departing from the child support guidelines.

In Re the Marriage of Gehl · filed 1992-06-17(4)

However, the mere fact that a party has remarried does not alone constitute a “special circumstance” which otherwise warrants a court in departing from the requirements of the child support guidelines.

Section 598.21(4)(a) permits departure from the child support guidelines when overtime pay is anomalous, uncertain, or speculative.

In Re the Marriage of Brown · filed 1992-07-22(4)(a)

We agree with the court of appeals that in circumstances where overtime pay appears to be an anomaly or is uncertain or speculative, a deviation from the child support guidelines may be appropriate.

Section 598.21(4)(b) requires a written finding to depart from the child support guidelines, and the party seeking a departure must show that applying them would be unjust or inappropriate.

In Re the Marriage of Bonnette · filed 1992-09-29(4)(b)

The supreme court has directed “[t]he court shall not vary from the amount of child support which should result from application of the guidelines without a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.” ... See Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(b) (1991). Donald has the burden of proving the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Section 598.21(4) does not permit reducing guideline child support solely because the noncustodial parent has substantial visitation.

State Ex Rel. Lara v. Lara · filed 1993-02-17(4)

In the present case, Jamie has shown no special circumstances allowing us to deviate from the child support guidelines. ... We conclude that even though Jamie may have substantial visitation with his child, he is not excused from further supporting her as ordered by the district court.