Decree - CDDM001883

52

Transcript of Decree - CDDM001883

Page 1: Decree - CDDM001883
Page 2: Decree - CDDM001883

2RDM03

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING

UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.

Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 ORDER FOR TRIAL ON PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

On September 23, 2013 , the above-entitled matter is presented to the Court forattention. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage has been on file for more than 90days. The Court finds that this matter should be scheduled for trial pursuant to districtadministrative rule number 2.7. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows: 1. This matter shall be scheduled for trial by the court administrator as soon aspracticable. One day has been allocated for trial. The parties shall inform the courtadministrator if additional time is required. 2. If a party believes that this case should be exempted from automaticassignment for trial, the parties shall file an application for exemption, stating thereasons therefore, within ten days of the filing of this order. The application shall besigned personally by the party making the application. A copy shall be sent to thecourt administrator. The application shall be brought to the attention of the Court in themanner of a motion. 3. Not later than five days prior to the trial, the parties shall exchange exhibitsand exhibit list(Petitioner to use numbers and Respondent to use letters.) Further, thefollowing shall be filed with the clerk of court at the same time: (a) Each party's current affidavit of financial status, if not previously filed;

1 of 3

E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 3: Decree - CDDM001883

(b) Each party's child support guidelines worksheet (if applicable and notpreviously filed); (c) Each party's certificate of completion of Children in the Middle (if applicable); (d) The pretrial stipulation form prescribed by the Court, which shall containeach party's proposal for resolution of all pending issues. If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability coordinator at641-421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disablity coordinators cannot provide legal advice. CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHARTMITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Petition File Date: 06/25/13

2 of 3

E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 4: Decree - CDDM001883

State of Iowa Courts

Case Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLING

Type: ORDER DIRECTING CT. ADMIN. TO SET TRIAL DATE

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2013-09-23 15:13:57

3 of 3

E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 5: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2013 JUL 15 12:45 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 6: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2013 JUL 22 3:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 7: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2013 JUL 22 3:11 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 8: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2013 JUL 24 10:46 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 9: Decree - CDDM001883

2RDM03

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING

UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.

Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 ORDER FOR TRIAL ON PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

On September 23, 2013 , the above-entitled matter is presented to the Court forattention. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage has been on file for more than 90days. The Court finds that this matter should be scheduled for trial pursuant to districtadministrative rule number 2.7. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows: 1. This matter shall be scheduled for trial by the court administrator as soon aspracticable. One day has been allocated for trial. The parties shall inform the courtadministrator if additional time is required. 2. If a party believes that this case should be exempted from automaticassignment for trial, the parties shall file an application for exemption, stating thereasons therefore, within ten days of the filing of this order. The application shall besigned personally by the party making the application. A copy shall be sent to thecourt administrator. The application shall be brought to the attention of the Court in themanner of a motion. 3. Not later than five days prior to the trial, the parties shall exchange exhibitsand exhibit list(Petitioner to use numbers and Respondent to use letters.) Further, thefollowing shall be filed with the clerk of court at the same time: (a) Each party's current affidavit of financial status, if not previously filed;

1 of 3

E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 10: Decree - CDDM001883

(b) Each party's child support guidelines worksheet (if applicable and notpreviously filed); (c) Each party's certificate of completion of Children in the Middle (if applicable); (d) The pretrial stipulation form prescribed by the Court, which shall containeach party's proposal for resolution of all pending issues. If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability coordinator at641-421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disablity coordinators cannot provide legal advice. CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHARTMITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Petition File Date: 06/25/13

2 of 3

E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 11: Decree - CDDM001883

State of Iowa Courts

Case Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLING

Type: ORDER DIRECTING CT. ADMIN. TO SET TRIAL DATE

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2013-09-23 15:13:57

3 of 3

E-FILED 2013 SEP 23 3:14 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 12: Decree - CDDM001883

Notice Id: 2CA004IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , Plaintiff / Petitioner, vs. MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , Defendant / Respondent.

Notice of Civil Trial Setting Conference Case No: 02811 CDDM001883

A scheduling conference will be held on 10/17/13 at 11:00 AM with Kellie Orres, as District CourtDesignee, pursuant to I.R.C.P 1.602. This conference shall be conducted by telephone conference call initiated by plaintiff's counsel. Kellie Orres may be contacted via telephone at: (515) 574-3752. 1. PARTICIPATION: All attorneys appearing in the case shall participate in this conference. A partywho is not represented by counsel shall contact the Court Administrator's office (at the above phonenumber) prior to the date and time of the conference call. 2. TRIAL SCHEDULING: A firm trial date shall be established in accordance with the SupremeCourt's time standards as provided by Chapter 23, Iowa Court Rules. NO CONTINUANCES SHALLBE GRANTED EXCEPT BY COURT ORDER, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN. 3. SANCTIONS: If a party or attorney fails to participate in the scheduling conference or issubstantially unprepared to participate in the conference, the Court may impose appropriatesanctions, including reasonable expenses and attorney fees. (I.R.C.P 1.602(5)). /s/ Kellie Orres --------------------------------------- Designee of the Court Clerk to provide copies ornotice of document to attorneysof record and parties appearing

E-FILED 2013 SEP 24 2:38 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 13: Decree - CDDM001883

pro se.

E-FILED 2013 SEP 24 2:38 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 14: Decree - CDDM001883

Recipient ListCase ID : 02811 CDDM001883 - MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS

MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGEvent Cd : OFTN

RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHART filedERIN ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGH filed

E-FILED 2013 SEP 24 2:38 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 15: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2013 OCT 15 10:12 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 16: Decree - CDDM001883

Notice Id: 2CA101

IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , Plaintiff / Petitioner, vs. MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , Defendant / Respondent.

Case No: 02811 CDDM001883 Trial Notice

The above entitled matter is hereby scheduled for non-jury trial on 02/11/14 at 09:00 AM . 1 Day Property/VisitationDiscovery Due 60 days prior to trial /s/ Kellie Orres ----------------------------------- Designee of the Court Clerk to provide copies or noticeof this document to attorneys of record,parties appearing pro se andjudge if assigned Docket Code = OSTR

E-FILED 2013 OCT 21 3:30 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 17: Decree - CDDM001883

Recipient ListCase ID : 02811 CDDM001883 - MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS

MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLINGEvent Cd : OSTR

RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHART filedERIN ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGH filed

E-FILED 2013 OCT 21 3:30 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 18: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2013 NOV 04 10:06 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 19: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2014 JAN 02 3:30 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 20: Decree - CDDM001883

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLING ****************************************************************************** MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING, * EQUITY NO. CDDM001883 * Petitioner, * * MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND CONCERNING * * MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING, * * Respondent. * ****************************************************************************** COMES NOW the Mistaya Hoefling, Petitioner herein, and moves the Court for a

continuance in the above case. In support thereof Petitioner states to the Court as follows:

1. Trial in this case is set for February 11, 2014.

2. Both parties own stock in a family trucking business.

2. On December 12, 2013, Petitioner emailed to Respondent’s attorney a Joint

Stipulation in an effort to begin settlement negotiations.

3. On December 17, 2013, the Respondent’s attorney emailed the Joint Stipulation

back to our office with their revisions. After reviewing their revisions, the only issues at hand

were based around the children.

4. On January 3, 2014, we emailed our revisions to the Joint Stipulation back to the

Respondent’s attorney.

5. On January 9, 2014, we received an email from Respondent’s attorney that he was

not agreeing to the settlement dollar amount as it related to the corporate shares of this trucking

business. We had discussed hiring an expert to value the Hoefling Trucking business with our

client early on, but decided against it since the business settlement dollar amount was not an

issue in their revision of December 17, 2013. The cost of a full-fledged evaluation exceeds

E-FILED 2014 JAN 10 3:26 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 21: Decree - CDDM001883

$3,500 and Petitioner was not going to incur that cost if it was not necessary.

6. Petitioner and the undersigned were making good faith efforts to settle this matter

out of Court. Petitioner will now have to hire and expert to value the business and there is not

time for that with the trial being one month away. Had Petitioner known that this was an issue

an expert would have been hired in December to prepare for trial.

7. Respondent resists a continuance of the trial in this case. The Court would be

benefitted by a business evaluation prepared by an expert.

WHEREFORE the Petitioner requests that the Court enter an Order allowing this Motion

for Continuance and for whatever other relief the Court deems just and equitable in its premises.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2014.

RHINEHART LAW, P.C.

BY R. Scott Rhinehart, #AT0006666 505 5th St., Ste. 310 Sioux City, IA 51101 (712) 258-8706 (712) 233-3417 (fax) [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys of record herein at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleading on January 10, 2014. By: _____ U.S. Mail ______ Facsimile _____ Hand delivered ______ Overnight courier __X__ Efile _____ Other ____________________________ Signature /s/ Melissa Johnk

E-FILED 2014 JAN 10 3:26 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 22: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2014 JAN 13 10:49 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 23: Decree - CDDM001883

E-FILED 2014 JAN 13 10:49 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 24: Decree - CDDM001883

2RDM01

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING

UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.

Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 O R D E R

Motion for Continuance came on for telephonic hearing by agreement of the parties onJanuary 23, 2014.

A review of the file indicates that trial notice was filed on October 21, 2013, followinga trial setting conference. The notice scheduled the trial for February 11, 2014. Itprovided one day property/visitation. It further directed that discovery was due 60 daysprior to trial.

It appears that respondent is involved in a family trucking business and that there aresix outstanding shares, each party in this case having one share. Respondent made anoffer to settle this matter conditioned on acceptance by December 23, 2013. The offerwas not so accepted. Petitioner filed her Motion for Continuance seeking time to retainan evaluation expert. Notwithstanding the filing of the Motion on January 10, 2013, thisCourt first became aware of the Motion on January 22, 2014. In this Court's view, theparties have had adquate time to prepare for the trial.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial is overruled.1 of 3

E-FILED 2014 JAN 27 12:23 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 25: Decree - CDDM001883

CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO: RICHARD SCOTT RHINEHARTERIN ELIZABETH MCCULLOUGHDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR

2 of 3

E-FILED 2014 JAN 27 12:23 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 26: Decree - CDDM001883

State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLINGType: OTHER ORDER

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2014-01-27 12:24:31

3 of 3

E-FILED 2014 JAN 27 12:23 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 27: Decree - CDDM001883

2RDM02

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OFMISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING AND MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING

UPON THE PETITION OF MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , PETITIONER, AND CONCERNING MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , RESPONDENT.

Case No. 02811 CDDM001883 COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATE

COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM(The court reporter shall file this memorandum with the district court clerk.)

Appearances:For Plaintiff/Petitioner: Scott RinehartFor Defendant/Respondent: Erin McCulloughOther: Information required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.903(3):I, Tara Gibson, am providing the following information as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure1.903(3): 1. The type of proceeding that was reported: Dissolution 2. The date(s) on which the proceeding occurred: February 11, 2014 3. The name of the court reporter who reported the proceeding: Tara Gibson 4. The name of the judge who presided over the proceeding: Gary McMinimee 5. The reporting fee for the proceeding: $40.00 6. We, the undersigned judge before whom the above-entitled case was tried, and the official courtreporter who, by order of the Court, reported the same, do hereby certify that the above and foregoingis the report of the whole proceedings upon the trial and/or hearing of the above-entitled cause madeand taken pursuant to the order and direction of the Court, in accordance with Iowa Code Section624.10. /s/Tara Gibson _________________________________________

1 of 3

E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 1:58 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 28: Decree - CDDM001883

2 of 3

E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 1:58 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 29: Decree - CDDM001883

State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLINGType: COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATE

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2014-02-11 13:59:34

3 of 3

E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 1:58 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 30: Decree - CDDM001883

IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING , Plaintiff, vs. MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING , Defendant.

Case No: 02811 CDDM001883 EXHIBIT LIST Dissolution February 11, 2014 Presiding Judge: Gary McMinimee

The following exhibits were offered and admitted by the Court at the hearing as shown above: Petitioner's Exhibits 1. Pay stub.2-8 Not offered9. Balance sheet 1/19/1310. Balance sheet 1/2/1211. Balance sheet 1/30/1112. Photos of kids13. Photo of Mistaya and A.H.14. Photo of Mistaya and G.M.15. Photo with Mistay's parents16. Photos of the inside of home17. Information on Cerebral Palsy18. Information on Garner's Syndrome19. IPERS statement20. Child support21. Affidavit of attorney fees Respondent's Exhibits 101. Hoefling Trucking Tax returns years 2005-2012102. Respondent's 2013 W-2103. Petitioner's 2013 Salary104A. Hoefling Trucking Truck and Trailer payments

1 of 3

E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 2:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 31: Decree - CDDM001883

104B. Hoefling Outstand debts105. Child support Guidelines Worksheet106A. House appraisal by Swanson106B. House payoff107. Not entered into evidence108. Ron Muhlbauer CPA letter and balance sheet109. Petitioner and Respondent's Personal Tax Returns110. House photos111. House appraisal by MJG Appraisal for Mortgage112. Respondent's Insurance benefits and cost

Court Exhibit 100. Pretrial Stipulation

2 of 3

E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 2:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 32: Decree - CDDM001883

State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLINGType: EXHIBIT LIST

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2014-02-11 14:11:05

3 of 3

E-FILED 2014 FEB 11 2:10 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 33: Decree - CDDM001883

IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

In Re the Marriage Of MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING and MITCHELL LYNN

HOEFLING

Upon The Petition Of

MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING,

Petitioner,

And Concerning

MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING,

Respondent.

NO. CDDM001883

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW, and ORDER, JUDGEMENT

and DECREE

On February 11, 2014, this dissolution matter came on for trial to the Court.

The parties appeared with their attorneys of record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties met on February 14, 2004 and were married on May 29, 2004.

The Petition was filed on June 25, 2013. Mistaya had maintained in good faith a residence

in Iowa for more than one year immediately preceding the filing of the Petition; her

residence was not for the sole purpose of obtaining a dissolution. Mitchell was served on

June 28, 2013 in Sac County Iowa. Both parties, through the time of trial, resided in the

marital residence at 300 Walnut, Odebolt, Iowa, where they had lived for the previous

seven years.

2. The Petition was filed in good faith and for the purposes set forth therein.

The allegations material to the dissolution of the marriage have been established by

competent evidence. There has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the

extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no

reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

3. Mitchell has not commenced a separate action for dissolution of marriage and

no such action is pending in any court in this state or elsewhere.

4. The parties are the parents of three children: V.H. (born November 2004);

A.H. (born December 2006); and H.H. (born May 2008). Mistaya also has a child, G.M.,

who was about eighteen months old at the time of the parties’ marriage. G.M.’s father has

never been involved in her life, although he continues to pay child support of $400 per

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 34: Decree - CDDM001883

month; Mitchell has been her father figure.

5. Mistaya was born on July 31, 1978. She is in good health. She has

supportive family in the Odebolt area. Her parents moved from Carroll to Odebolt about

five years ago. She has a sister in Sioux City. She sees her sister and her children at

least twice per month.

Mistaya has a degree1 in education from the University of Northern Iowa.

She was just finishing up her schooling at DMACC in Carroll when the parties married.

She had student loans. Following the marriage, she substituted at Odebolt-Arthur

Community Schools and then took a full time position with the school teaching fifth grade

which she has done for the past five years. The children attend the same school which is

about two blocks from the parties’ home. Her annual wage in 2008 was $9,788; in 2009 it

was $9,127; in 2010 it was $22,362; in 2011 was $38,551; and in 2012 was $36,107. Her

wage for the fiscal year 2013-2014 is $41,254.66. Approximately $2,395.15 is withheld for

IPERS, making her current taxable income $38,859.46 per year. The refund value of her

IPERS account is approximately $12,500. The school provides her with individual health

insurance without costs. Mistaya does not work during the summer. She takes classes to

keep her teaching certificate up to date.

6. Mitchell was born on August 23, 1978. He is in good health. Mitchell has

extended family in the area including his parents and several siblings. He expects to find a

residence in Oldebolt, probably living with his brother.

Prior to the parties’ marriage Mitchell completed a degree in agriculture at

Iowa State University. He was working 50 to 55 hours per week as a farm hand when the

parties met. In 2005, Mitchell bought a truck and began driving for Schroeder Trucking in

Odebolt. In 2007, he became employed as a driver for his parents’ business, Hoefling

Trucking LLC. Mitchell’s parents started Hoefling Trucking LLC on June 6, 2005. Until

2011, his parents were the only shareholders of the company. Hoefling Trucking, as an

LLC, passes through income and expenses to its shareholders. The principle business of

Hoefling Trucking LLC has always been hauling market hogs. In 2008, Mitchell had a

wage of $40,300 but it appears his overall net income from trucking was about $30,152; in

2009 he had wages of $40,300 but it appears his net income from trucking was $26,477;

1 Mistaya also has an associate’s degree in marketing which she has not used.

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 35: Decree - CDDM001883

and in 2010 he had wages of $41,075 but it appears he had net trucking income of

$25,143 after deducting his unreimbursed employee expenses.

In 2011, the parties and Mitchell’s brother Mathew and his wife, joined

Mitchell’s parents as shareholders in Hoefling Trucking LLC, each having one of the six

outstanding shares. There was no evidence that Mitchell, Mathew or their wives gave any

consideration for the shares. In 2011, Mitchell had wages of $40,356, trucking expenses of

$2,630, and unreimbursed employee business expenses of $13,219; in 2011, each of the

parties received a K-1 from Hoefling Trucking, indicating that their respective share of

ordinary income was $12,579 and that their share of depreciation was $10,416. In 2012,

Mitchell had wages of $59,946, out of which $14,426.05 was withheld for health insurance.

He had office expense of $880 and unreimbursed employee business expenses of

$16,321. Each of the parties received a K-1 indicating their share of ordinary loss from the

corporation was $6,016 and that their share of net Section 1231 gain was $417. Mitchell’s

W-2 for 2013 shows wages of $63,772.76 including $15,152.76 withheld for medical

insurance. He has no benefits other than his wage. There was no evidence that the

Hoefling Trucking has ever distributed any funds to the parties in their capacity as owners.

Mitchell’s cost to cover himself and the children for medical insurance in 2014

will be $1,142.66 per month. The cost to cover him alone would be $438.29 per month.

The cost to Mitchell to provide dental insurance for him and children will be $120.07 per

month. The cost for covering himself alone for dental insurance would be $43.21 per

month.

7. Hoefling Trucking, at present, employs Mitchell, Mathew and one other

person. It has four owner/operators. Mitchell in addition to driving, dispatches, schedules

the drivers, and does a lot of the paperwork. Mathew has a mechanic’s degree and, in

addition to driving, maintains the vehicles in good condition. Mitchell’s mother pays bills

and handles payroll. Mistaya has not been involved with the company for the last five

years other than to pay a fuel bill on line when requested to do so by Mitchell’s mother and

to occasionally pick up a part. Mitchell’s parents own the land and building where the

trucks are maintained. They pay the taxes on the building and land. For the last few

years, Hoefling Trucking has paid for the water and utilities used by it on the site.

In 2011 Hoefling Trucking had income of $75,474. In 2012 it had a loss of

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 36: Decree - CDDM001883

$36,093. Ninety five percent of the business of Hoefling Trucking is hauling market hogs

for Maschhoffs, LLC an Illinois company with hog facilities in Illinois and surrounding

states. They entered into a relationship in June 2010 but it is not an exclusive hauling

arrangement and either party can terminate the relationship at any time without

consequences. Hoefling has recently been short about 15 loads, including two the day

before trial and one on the day of trial; it anticipated being two short the day after. A

serious disease in the hog industry is impacting the hauling of market hogs.

On January 30, 2011, Mitchell’s father signed a financial statement for Iowa

State Bank indicating a net worth for the business of $123,768. On January 2, 2012 the

bank prepared a balance sheet indicating a net worth of $201,789. On February 26, 2013,

Mitchell’s father signed a balance sheet prepared by the bank on January 29, 2013

indicating a net worth of $190,080. Mitchell’s mother testified the January 29, 2013

balance sheet was probably accurate. A balance sheet2 prepared by the bank on January

5, 2014 indicated a net worth of about $142,782.

8. The children have health issues. H.H. has cerebral palsy. He makes use

braces and other appliances that help him. He takes therapy that is intended to maintain

his capabilities. He goes to the Shriner’s Hospital in Minneapolis four times each year

where care is provided without cost. The Shriners also assist with fuel costs and any

necessary overnight accommodations. A.H. has Gardner’s Syndrome, a condition that

greatly increases the risk of cancer. She has a colonoscopy every year. V.H. has an

orthodontic issue which will probably require a surgery that will spread his upper jaw. He is

also struggling with the parties’ divorce.

The children are involved in activities, including dance and sports.

The children have been raised in the Catholic faith. Mitchell is Catholic.

Mistaya is not. Nonetheless, the parties expect the children to continue to be raised within

the Catholic faith. The children attend CCD on Wednesday evenings.

During the marriage, Mistaya has been the children’s primary care provider.

She regularly attends parent-teacher conferences and takes the children to medical and

dental appointments. Mistaya transports the children to their activities. She leaves school

at 3:45 p.m. and the children sometimes wait for her. Sometimes they go to the home of a

2 The January 4, 2014 statement was not offered as an exhibit but its contents were testified to.

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 37: Decree - CDDM001883

grandparent.

Mistaya considers Mitchell to be “a loving but disengaged father.” She points

out he is gone two or three nights per week and has not taken a vacation3 for two years.

Mitchell does not believe he is disengaged. He points out that he has attended some

parent-teacher conferences and has taken the children to some medical and dental

appointments. He camps with the children on weekends. Mitchell represents that he

believes the children look to him for advice and would be lost without him. He feels close

to A.H. and sometimes picks her up from school. He regularly hunts with H.H. and picks

him up from school when he can; H.H. always knows where he is. V.H. often walks from

school and calls when he gets home. He, like H.H., always knows where Mitchell is and

they regularly visit before bed. Mitchell acknowledges that he is gone two or three nights

each week driving but points out that he does not leave until after the children are in bed.

Moreover, Mitchell represents that he intends to change the drivers’ schedules so that he

can spend more time with the children. Recently he has been home with the children after

school. He represents that he is willing to transport the children to activities.

The children regularly see both extended families. The children are close to

both sets of grandparents. H.H. generally leaves preschool before lunch and rides the bus

to Mistaya’s parents. The other children also sometimes go there after school. Mitchell’s

parents picked up the parties’ children from school from time to time. The children have

also ridden their bikes the Mitchell’s parents’ home. Mitchell’s father makes a special effort

to get to all of the children’s sports activities. The parties and their children have

traditionally spent Christmas Eve with Mistaya’s parents and Christmas Day with Mitchell’s

parents.

Mistaya represents that conflict between the parties has caused stress within

the home. She represents that the parties cannot talk without arguing and cannot limit

their conversations to the children. She believes that text messages work best.

9. The parties have the assets listed in Table 1. With the exception of the

parties’ interest in Hoefling Trucking, the parties agree to the values of the assets listed

in Table 1:

3 According to Mitchell, he prefers not to vacation with Mistaya’s parents. Last year, Mistaya and the children accompanied Mistaya’s parents to Paris. Mitchell was invited after Mistaya’s sister backed out of the trip.

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 38: Decree - CDDM001883

Table 1

Property Market Value Debt Net Value Mistaya Mitchell

Real Estate Home-300 Walnut, Oldebolt, IA $ 46,000.00 $ 24,830.00 $ 21,170.00 $ 21,170.00

Vehicles 2012 Chevy Suburban $ 35,750.00 $ 34,516.00 $ 1,234.00 $ 1,234.00 2006 Ford F250 $ 17,975.00 $ 14,361.22 $ 3,613.78 $ 3,613.78

Household contents Fridge $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00

Washing Machine $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00

Kirby Vacuum $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00

John Deere lawn mower $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00

50” flat screen tv $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00

Furniture $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00

Retirement Accounts

Mistaya IPERS $ 12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00

Securites Two shares of Hoefling Trucking $ 47,594.00 $47,594.00 $47,594.00

Total $164,219.00 $ 73,707.22 $90,511.78 $39,304.00 $51,207.78

The parties have agreed to file joint tax returns in 2013. Based on the

financials of Hoefling Trucking LLC, Mistaya opines that each share of Hoefling Trucking

stock has a value of about $40,000. At Mitchell’s request, Ronald Muhlbauer4, a CPA

experienced in business operations and valuations, prepared a balance sheet for Hoefling

Trucking LLC as of July 31, 2013 based on the information provided to him. That balance

sheet indicates a net worth on July 31, 2013 of $1,764. Neither the balance sheet provided

to the bank nor the balance sheet prepared by Muhlbauer attributes any intrinsic value or

good will to the business. In Muhlbauer’s view the only goodwill attributable to the

company “is the ability to transport the commodity in a timely and efficient matter,” which in

his opinion has little or no intrinsic value. In his opinion the value of the business is the

value after liquidation of assets and payment of liabilities. Muhlbauer prepared the July 31,

2013 balance sheet from bank statements, loan documents, and other financial information

provided by Hoeflings, including appraisals he requested Hoeflings to obtain from

Peterbuilt Truck dealers and Wilson truck dealers.

Differences between Muhlbauer’s July 31, 2013 balance sheet and the bank’s

4 Ronald Muhlbauer is not a certified business appraiser.

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 39: Decree - CDDM001883

January 12, 2013 balance sheet, includes different equipment values. The January 12,

2013 balance sheet indicates the equipment has a value of $630,500. There was no

evidence as to the basis of that number. The Muhlbauer balance sheet lists the equipment

at the appraised value of $542,500. In addition, the Muhlbauer balance sheet shows

$85,404 more in liabilities than the January 12, 2013 bank balance statement.

Muhlbauer indicated the difference in net worth between his July 2013

balance sheet and the bank’s January 5, 2014 balance sheet was largely explained by the

addition of $74,000 of assets, represented by two Chevrolet pickups that did not appear on

the July 2013 balance sheet, and $68,000 of liabilities, apparently largely accounts

payable, that appear on his July 2013 balance sheet but not on the bank’s January 2014

balance sheet. In Muhlbauer’s opinion, the net worth of the business would not have

increased to $142,782 in six months.

This court values Hoefling Trucking at the time of trial at $142,782. The

January 5, 2014 financial was apparently prepared by Hoefling Trucking with the benefit of

the Muhlbauer balance sheet and with the realization of the February 11, 2014 trial date.

The Court attributes the increase in net worth shown on the January 5, 2014 balance sheet

from that shown on the Muhlbauer balance sheet, to be most likely due to some erroneous

information provided to Muhlbauer by Hoeflings, but also to successful business operations

during the second half of 2013.

10. Mistaya and her father represent that based on Mistaya’s experience in

paying monthly bills she will need about $1200 to $1300 in addition to her salary from

school to meet her monthly expenses. She estimates on her financial statement that her

expenses will be $6450 per month, including $365 for house payment (including insurance

and taxes), $700 for meals and food, $300 for clothing, $1071 for car and transportation

expense (including Suburban payment of $708), $80 for medical and dental expense,

$1591 for utilities and telephone expense, $2200 for other expenses and $143 for student

loans. Her health insurance is provided without cost by her employer and she expects to

cover G.M. through Hawkeye. Mitchell is of the view that Mistaya spends money too freely,

especially when using her credit card. Mitchell has suggested to Mistaya that she replace

the Suburban with a minivan which he believes would substantially reduce her estimated

vehicle expense. Mistaya has no interest; she likes the roominess and safety of the larger

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 40: Decree - CDDM001883

vehicle.

11. Mystaya’s father testified he has made loans to Mistaya of $3500 and $6500

for attorney fees and household expenses. Mistaya has incurred attorney fees of

$8197.50. Mitchell represents he too has borrowed the money to pay his attorney.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and of the

parties.

2. Conciliation should be waived.

3. The parties are entitled to the dissolution prayed for in the Petition.

4. “[A] court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, [is to]

order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will

assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional

contact with both parents after the parties have separated . . . and which will encourage

parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical

harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result

from such contact with one parent.” Iowa Code Section 598.41(1)(a).

The parties agree to joint legal custody of the children and this court concurs.

It is in the children’s best interest that the parties have “equal participation in decisions

affecting [their] legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious

instruction.” Iowa Code Section 598.1(3).

The parties also agree that Mistaya should have physical care of the children.

“Physical care means the right and responsibility to maintain a home for the minor child

and provide for the routine care of the child.” Iowa Code Section 598.1(7).

The parties do not agree regarding visitation. Mitchell requests visitation

every other weekend, Wednesday and Thursday nights of each week, alternate holidays

and six weeks each summer beginning on June 1. He wants Wednesdays because of

CCD. Mistaya wants visitation limited to every other weekend, one school night from the

time school gets out until 7:00 p.m., and three weeks of summer visitation. She believes

the children will spend much of his visitation time with his family. Mistaya wants the

children on Christmas Eve when her family traditionally celebrates Christmas, with Mitchell

having the children on Christmas Day; that is the practice that the parties established

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 41: Decree - CDDM001883

during the marriage and there is no reason it should not continue. Considering Mitchell’s

relationship with his children during the marriage and his intentions regarding making more

time for his children, Mitchell should have the liberal visitation set forth in this Order.

5. The property subject to equitable division in a dissolution action is generally

the property existing at the time of trial, other than inherited property or gifts received by

one person. Iowa Code Section 598.21(5). It includes premarital property. In re Marriage

of Fennelly and Breckenfelder, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007). Debts as well as assets are

to be equitably divided between the parties. See In re Marriage of Smith, 351 N.W.2d 541,

543 (Iowa App. 1984). Here the parties have debts and the assets set forth in Table 1

subject to equitable division. Iowa Code Section 598.21(5) sets forth the criteria for

adjudicating the equitable distribution of the property. “Although an equal division is not

required, it is generally recognized that equality is often most equitable.” In re Marriage of

Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 683 (Iowa 2005). The assets should be distributed as set

forth in Table 1. Regarding 2013 income taxes, the parties should equally share any tax

refunds and should be equally responsible for any tax liabilities. Regarding debts, Mistaya

should pay her debt to her parents and her student loans. Mitchell should pay his loan to

his parents. To make the distribution of property equitable, Mitchell should pay to Mistaya

the sum of $6951.89 ($5951.89 to equalize the assets and $1000 for Mistaya to apply

toward her loan from her parents for household expenses).

6. The parties agree that Mitchell should continue to maintain health insurance

on the children. The parties should share uncovered medical expenses in accordance with

the child support guidelines.

7. The parties disagree on dependency exemptions. Mitchell requests that he

be awarded all three children as dependents until Mistaya is no longer able to claim G.M.

as a dependent. Mistaya requests that she be awarded the two younger children as

dependents and that Mitchell be awarded V.H. as a dependent so long as he is current on

his support; when V.H. can no longer be claimed as a dependent, she request that she

continue to be able to claim H.H as a dependent and that Mitchell be awarded A.H. so long

as he is current on his support; and when A.H. can no longer be claimed as a dependent,

the parties shall alternate claiming H.H. so long as Mitchell is current on his child support.

At trial she suggested each party claim one of the older children, and alternate the

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 42: Decree - CDDM001883

youngest; she indicated she did not care who claimed the youngest in 2014. In this court’s

view the dependency exemptions as most fairly divided as set forth in this order.

8. Mitchell should pay child support in accordance with the following Child

Support Guideline Worksheet:

I. Net Monthly Income of Petitioner, Mitchell Hoefling

[ ] Custodial Parent [X] Noncustodial Parent [ ] Joint Physical Care

Petitioner claims 1 child as tax dependents.

A. Sources and Amounts of Annual Income:

TOTAL: $63,772.76

B. Federal Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income $63,772.76

less 1/2 self-employment (FICA) tax: <0.00>

less federal adjustments to income

less personal exemptions, self plus 1 dependents <7,900.00>

less standard deduction

filing as single <6,200.00>

Net taxable income - federal: $49,672.76

Federal Tax Liability: $8,274.44

Federal Tax Credits <1,000.00>

Final federal tax liability: <7,274.44>

C. State Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income: $63,772.76

less 1/2 self employment (FICA) tax: <0.00>

less federal tax liability (adjusted for dependent tax credit) <7,274.44>

less standard deduction

filing as single <1,920.00>

Net taxable income - state: $54,578.32

State tax liability (tables): $3,231.20

less pers/dep. credits: <80.00>

plus school district surtax (0%) 0.00

less tax credits <0.00>

Final state tax liability: <3,151.20>

D. Social Security and Medicare Tax / Mandatory Pension Deduction: Annual earned income: $63,772.76

Income not subject to FICA: $0.00

Applicable rate (7.65% or 15.3% as adjusted)

Annual Social Security and Medicare tax liability <4,878.62>

E. Other Deductions (Annual): 1. Mandatory occupational license fees: <0.00>

2. Union dues: <0.00>

3. Actual medical support paid pursuant to court order or administrative

order in another order for other children, not the pending matter: <0.00>

4. Prior obligation of child support and spouse support actually

paid pursuant to court or administrative order: <0.00>

5. Deductions for 0 additional qualified dependents: <0.00>

6. Child care expenses: (present action) $0.00

less federal tax credits: <0.00>

less state tax credits: <0.00>

less state tax refund: <0.00>

Net child care expenses: <0.00>

Preliminary Net Annual Income: $48,468.50

Preliminary Average Monthly Income of Petitioner $4,039.04

7. Monthly Cash Medical Support ordered in this pending action $0.00

Adjusted Net Monthly Income of Petitioner $4,039.04

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 43: Decree - CDDM001883

II. NET MONTHLY INCOME OF RESPONDENT, Mistaya Hoefling

[X] Custodial Parent [ ] Noncustodial Parent [ ] Joint Physical Care

Respondent claims 2 children as tax dependents.

A. Sources and Amounts of Annual Income:

TOTAL: $41,254.66

B. Federal Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income ($2,395.15 untaxed) $38,859.51

less 1/2 self-employment (FICA) tax <0.00>

less federal adjustments to income

less personal exemptions, self plus 2 dependents <11,850.00>

less standard deduction

filing as head of household <9,100.00>

Net taxable income - federal: $17,909.51

Federal Tax Liability: $2,038.93

Federal Tax Credits for Dependent Children <2,000.00>

Final federal tax liability: <38.93>

C. State Tax Deduction: Gross Annual Taxable Income: $38,859.51

less 1/2 self employment (FICA) tax: <0.00>

less federal tax liability (adjusted for dependent tax credit) <38.93>

less standard deduction

filing as Head of Household <4,740.00>

Net taxable income - state: $34,080.58

State tax liability (tables): $1,735.12

less pers/dep. credits: <160.00>

plus school district surtax (0%) 0.00

less tax credits <0.00>

Final state tax liability: <1,575.12>

D. Social Security and Medicare Tax / Mandatory Pension Deduction: Annual earned income: $41,254.66

Income not subject to FICA: $0.00

Applicable rate (7.65% wages or 15.3% self-employment as adjusted)

Annual Social Security and Medicare tax liability <3,155.98>

E. Other Deductions (Annual): 1. Mandatory occupational license fees: <0.00>

2. Union dues: <0.00>

3. Actual medical support paid pursuant to court order or administrative

order in another order for other children, not the pending matter: <0.00>

4. Prior obligation of child support and spouse support actually

paid pursuant to court or administrative order: <0.00>

5. Deductions for 1 additional qualified dependents: <3,300.37>

6. Child care expenses: (present action) $0.00

less federal tax credits: <0.00>

less state tax credits: <0.00>

less state tax refund: <0.00>

Net child care expenses: <0.00>

Preliminary Net Annual Income: $33,184.26

Preliminary Average Monthly Income of Respondent $2,765.36

7. Monthly Cash Medical Support ordered in this pending action $0.00

Adjusted Net Monthly Income of Respondent $2,765.36

III. Calculation of the Guideline Amount of Support

Custodial Noncustodial Combined

Parent Parent [ ] Petitioner [X] Petitioner

[X] Respondent [ ] Respondent

A. Adjusted Net Monthly Income $2,765.36 + $4,039.04 = $6,804.40

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 44: Decree - CDDM001883

B. Proportional Share of Income 40.6407% + 59.3593% = 100%

C. Number of Children for Whom Support is Sought 3

D. Basic Support Obligation Using Only NCP's

Adjusted Net Monthly Income N/A

E. Basic Support Obligation Using Combined

Adjusted Net Monthly Income $1,968.00

F. Each Parent's Share of the Basic Support Obligation

Using Combined Incomes $799.81 $1,168.19

G. NCP's Basic Support Obligation Before Health Insurance $1,168.19

H. Cost of Child(ren)'s Health Insurance Premium $0.00 $781.23

*Calculation override. Reasonable NCP cost is $265.72

I. Health Insurance Add-On or Deduction From

NCP's Obligation -$317.50

J. Guideline Amount of Child Support for NCP $850.69

V. SPECIAL FINDINGS

A. Income imputed to Respondent:

Income imputed to Petitioner:

B. Estimated income of Respondent:

Estimated income of Petitioner:

C. Deviations made from Child Support Guidelines:

D. Requested amount of child support per month

VI. Changes in Child Support Obligation as Number of Children Entitled to Support Changes (For cases with multiple children based on present income and applicable guidelines

calculation method):

VI. a. Basic Obligation

Number NCP's Basic Health Insurance Extraordinary Guideline

of Support Add-on or Visitation Amount of

Children Obligation Deduction Credit Child Support

2 $1,006.73 -$317.50 $0.00 $689.23

1 $706.38 -$317.50 $0.00 $388.88

8. “Alimony is a stipend to a spouse in lieu of the other spouse’s legal obligation

for support.” In Re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Iowa 1989). Alimony may be

used to remedy the inequities in a marriage and to compensate a spouse who leaves the

marriage at a financial disadvantage. In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 742 (Iowa

1993). Case law in Iowa has recognized three types of alimony: traditional, rehabilitative,

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 45: Decree - CDDM001883

and reimbursement. In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179, 184 (Iowa 2004).

Traditional alimony is “payable for life or for so long as a spouse is incapable of self-

support.” Id. Rehabilitative alimony is “a way of supporting an economically dependent

spouse through a limited period of reeducation or retraining following divorce, thereby

creating incentive and opportunity for that spouse to become self-supporting.” Id.

Reimbursement alimony “is predicated upon economic sacrifices made by one spouse

during the marriage that directly enhance the future earning capacity of the other.” In re

Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 64 (Iowa 1989). A court need not designate which

type of alimony it awards and it may award a combination of different types of alimony. In

re Marriage of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822, 827 (Iowa 2008).

Mistaya requests alimony of $750 per month for ten years. She contends

that she needs $1250 (in the form of child support and/or alimony) in addition to her wages

to support herself and the children. Mitchell takes the position that there should be no

alimony award because, in his opinion, she lives beyond what she can afford and that her

income and support is sufficient for her needs.

A court may grant alimony at its discretion after considering “(1) the earning

capacity of each party, and (2) present standard of living and ability to pay balanced

against the relative needs of the other,” (In re Marriage of Estlund, 344 N.W.2d 276,

281(Iowa 1983)), together with relevant factors listed in Iowa Code Section 598.21A

Relevant factors here include “[t]he length of the marriage.” Iowa Code

Section 598.21A(1)(a). The marriage of Mitchell and Mistaya lasted about nine years

before the dissolution petition was filed, a marriage of moderate length. “The age and

physical and emotional health of the parties” (Iowa Code Section 598.21A(1)(b)) are also

relevant factors. Mitchell is 35 years of age and Mistaya is 35 years of age. Both parties

are in generally good physical and emotional health.

Also relevant is “[t]he distribution of the property made pursuant to section

598.21.” Iowa Code Section 598.21A(1)(c). Although alimony and property awards have

different purposes, they are closely related; they are considered together in evaluating their

individual sufficiency. In re Marriage of McFarland, 239 N.W.2d 175 (Iowa 1976); In re

Marriage of Hardy, 539 N.W.2d 729 (Iowa 1995). The amount of alimony “must be

determined in light of all circumstances, including the property settlement.” In re Marriage

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 46: Decree - CDDM001883

of Bevers, 326 N.W.2d 896, 900 (Iowa 1982). A “court can properly consider how the

property has been divided in assessing the needs and the resources of the parties in fixing

alimony.” In re Marriage of Sparks, 323 N.W.2d 264, 267 (Iowa App. 1982). Here, each

party has received marital property approximately equal in value. The Court notes that the

award of the Suburban to Mistaya places a substantial debt burden upon her but that is

what she requested. The Court also notes that the property payment will not be sufficient

for her to pay her debt to her parents. Mitchell will leave the marriage with a third interest

in Hoefling trucking, but with debt to Mistaya, debt to his parents, and no place to live.

Finally, it is appropriate here to consider “[t]he earning capacity of the party

seeking maintenance, including educational background, training, employment skills, work

experience, length of absence from the job market, responsibility for children under either

an award of custody or physical care, and the time and expense necessary to acquire

sufficient education or training to enable the party to find appropriate employment, [as well

as t]he feasibility of the party seeking maintenance becoming self-supporting at a standard

of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage, and the length of time

necessary to achieve this goal.” Iowa Code Section 598.21A(1)(e & f). Mistaya has a

degree in education. There is no evidence that she wants or needs additional education or

training to have appropriate employment. Although Mistaya has always had primary care

of the children, her marriage did not keep her from the job market. Indeed, for teaching 9

months of the year, she is provided health insurance without cost, the IPERS retirement

program for a pre-tax contribution of $2,395.15, and a taxable income of $38,859.51. Her

taxable income is not significantly less than what the parties earned together prior to 2010

and had available for family expenses. Based on the child support guideline worksheet, it

appears that after payment of taxes, making her IPERS contribution, and obtaining health

insurance, she will have $3616.05 (an adjusted net income of $2765.36 and child support

of $850.69) available to pay her other monthly expenses. With respect to Mitchell’s ability

to pay alimony, it appears that after payment of taxes, he will have $1925.62 (adjusted net

income of $4039.04, less $1262.73 for health and dental insurance and less $850.69 for

child support) available to fund a retirement account and pay his other monthly expenses.

In view of the foregoing, no alimony should be awarded. In this Court’s view

Mistaya does not have a need for alimony and if she desires additional income she can

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 47: Decree - CDDM001883

supplement her income with summer employment; she also has the ability to reduce her

expenses by replacing her Suburban with a more economical vehicle. On the other hand,

this court does not believe Mitchell has the financial ability to pay alimony and it appears

that there is little he can do little to alter his financial situation.

9. Court costs are to be equitably apportioned between the parties. Iowa Code

Section 625.3. Attorney fees are not allowed as a matter of right in dissolution cases.

Whether an award is granted depends chiefly on the financial condition and earnings of

both parties, as well as the relative needs and abilities of the parties. In Re Marriage of

Fish, 350 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Iowa App. 1984). Mistaya requests that Mitchell pay the costs

and contribute toward the payment of her attorney fees. Mitchell takes the position that

each party should pay their own fees and one half of the court cost. Considering the

property award herein and the relative incomes, expenses and debts of the parties, each

party should pay one half the costs and their own attorney fees.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and the parties are restored to

the same rights and privileges as unmarried persons.

2. The parties shall have joint legal custody of their children. Mistaya shall have

physical care of the children. Unless otherwise agreed, Mitchell shall have the following

visitation:

(a) Alternating weekends from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

(b) Every Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Thursday; Mitchell shall be

responsible for transporting the children to school.

(c) Four weeks during each summer, commencing June 1, 2014. Mistaya shall

be entitled to have the children for a weekend midway through Mitchell’s

summer visitation with the children

(d) Alternating holidays. During odd numbered years: Easter, Memorial Day,

and Labor Day. Mitchell shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. on

these holidays. Mistaya shall have the children during these times in even

numbered years.

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 48: Decree - CDDM001883

During even numbered years: Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

Mitchell shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. on these holidays.

Mistaya shall have the children during these times in odd numbered years.

(e) Christmas: Mistaya shall have visitation from the time school lets out for

Christmas vacation until December 25th at 9:00 a.m. and Mitchell shall have

the children from December 25th at 9:00 a.m. until school resumes.

(f) Father’s day and his birthday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mistaya shall have

the children on Mother’s day and her birthday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(g) The children’s birthdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in even numbered years;

in even numbered years Mistaya shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to

7:00 p.m. on the day following the children’s birthdays. In odd numbered

years Mitchell shall have the children from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the day

following the children’s birthdays; in odd number years, Mistaya shall have the

children on their birthdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(h) The specified days of visitation shall take precedence over the weekend

visitation.

The parties shall share transportation. Unless the parties otherwise agree, and except on

Thursday mornings during the school year, Mitchell shall pick up the children at the

beginning visitation and Mistaya shall pick them up at the conclusion of visitation.

3. Mitchell shall pay monthly child support to Mistaya through the Iowa District

Court for Sac County or the Collection Services Center if appropriate, in the sum of

$850.69 commencing on the 1st day of May, 2014 and on the 1st day of each month

thereafter for so long as Mitchell has a support obligation for three children. Then he shall

pay child support in the sum of $689.23 per month so long as he has a support obligation

for two children. Then he shall pay child support in the sum of $388.88 per month so long

as he has a support obligation for one child. Mitchell’s child support obligation for a child

shall continue until the child reaches 18 years of age, earlier marries, becomes self-

supporting, or dies; however, if the child is attending high school on a full-time basis and

continues to live with Mistaya, the support obligation shall continue until the child’s 19th

birthday. Judgment is hereby rendered against Mitchell for such sums as they shall

become due and payable. The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to support of any

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 49: Decree - CDDM001883

child who may be dependent on the parties because of a physical or mental disability.

The parties are advised that Mitchell’s income is for purposes of support

subject to immediate income withholding regardless of whether support payments are in

arrears. Mistaya’s counsel may submit a proposed order.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to post-secondary educational

subsidies for the children until such time as the matter may arise.

So long as the parties can claim three children as dependency exemptions,

Mistaya shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption for V.H. and, in odd

numbered years, the dependency exemption for H.H.; Mitchell shall be entitled to claim the

dependency exemption for A.H. and, in even numbered years, the dependency exemption

for H.H., providing his support obligation is current at the end of the calendar year for which

he seeks to claim the exemption(s). So long as the parties can claim two children as

dependency exemptions, Mistaya shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption for

the younger child and Mitchell shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption for the

older child, providing his support obligation is current at the end of the calendar year for

which he seeks to claim the exemption. So long as the parties can claim one child as a

dependency exemption, Mistaya shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption in

odd numbered years and Mitchell shall be entitled to claim the dependency exemption in

even numbered years, providing his support obligation is current at the end of the calendar

year for which he seeks to claim the exemption.

So long as Mitchell has a support obligation for a child he shall provide health

insurance for the child. Mistaya shall pay the first $250 per year per child of uncovered

medical expenses. The balance of uncovered medical expenses shall be paid 59.4% by

Mitchell and 40.6% by Mistaya. “Uncovered medical expenses” means all medical

expenses for the child not paid by insurance. “Medical expenses” shall include, but not be

limited to, costs for reasonably necessary medical, orthodontia, dental treatment, physical

therapy, eye care, including eye glasses or contact lenses, mental health treatment,

substance abuse treatment, prescription drugs, and any other uncovered medical expense.

4. Mistaya is awarded:

A) Marital home at 300 Walnut, Oldebolt, subject to the mortgage

which she shall pay; she shall hold Mitchell harmless on the

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 50: Decree - CDDM001883

note secured by the mortgage;

B) 2012 Chevrolet Suburban, subject to the debt thereon which

she shall pay; she shall hold Mitchell harmless on the debt;

C) Fridge, washing machine, Kirby vacuum John Deere lawn

mower, 50” flat screen tv, furniture;

D) IPERS account in her name;

E) All other property in her possession not specifically awarded to

Mitchell.

Mitchell is awarded:

A) 2006 Ford 250, subject to the debt thereon which he shall pay;

he shall hold Mistaya harmless on the debt;

B) All shares and interest in Hoefling Trucking LLC;

C) All other property in his possession not specifically awarded to

Mistaya.

Mitchell shall pay the loan from his parents. Mistaya shall pay the loan from

her parents and her student loans. Any other debt shall be paid by the party incurring the

debt.

Mitchell shall pay to Mistaya the sum of $6951.89 and judgment is entered.

The judgment shall be paid within 90 days. Execution shall not issue prior to 90 days. Any

sum not paid when due shall draw interest at 5 percent per annum.

Mitchell shall remove himself and his belongings from the marital home within

30 days of this Decree.

5. Each party shall do all acts necessary and convenient to effectuate this

decree, including the execution of all appropriate documents.

6. Each party, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 598.22B(1), shall file with the

Clerk of Court or the Child Support Recovery Unit if all support payments are to be directed

to the Collection Services Center as provided in Iowa Code Sections 252B.14(2) and

252B.16, upon entry of this decree, and update as appropriate, the parties’ social security

number, residential and mailing addresses, telephone number, driver’s license number,

and the name, address, and telephone number of the parties’ employer. The information

so filed shall be disclosed and used pursuant to Iowa code Section 598.22B. Pursuant to

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 51: Decree - CDDM001883

Iowa Code Section 598.22(B)(2), the parties are hereby notified that in any child support

action initiated by the Child Support Recovery Unit or between the parties, upon sufficient

showing that diligent effort has been made to ascertain the location of such a party, the unit

or the court shall deem due process requirements for notice and service of process to be

met with respect to the party, upon delivery of written notice to the most recent residential

or employer address filed with the Clerk of Court or Child Support Recovery Unit.

7. Court costs shall be paid one half by each party.

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Page 52: Decree - CDDM001883

State of Iowa Courts

Type: OTHER ORDER

Case Number Case TitleCDDM001883 MISTAYA LOUISE HOEFLING VS MITCHELL LYNN HOEFLING

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2014-04-10 13:18:00 page 20 of 20

E-FILED 2014 APR 10 1:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT