In re the Marriage of Gardner
Jessica Kate Gardner, Petitioner-Appellee
Richard Jay Gardner, Respondent-Appellant
Attorney for Appellant
Alexander S. Momany
Attorney for Appellee
Rae M. Kinkead and Ryan S. Shellady
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Langholz, J. (12 pages)
Richard Gardner appeals the property-division provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage with Jessica Gardner. He argues that his $250,000 cash equalization payment to Jessica is inequitable because the district court inaccurately valued some of the property, improperly included proceeds from the sales of real estate and silver bars that he had already spent, and failed to divide his retirement accounts according to the formula from In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996), rather than awarding them all to him. OPINION HOLDS: Most of Richard’s challenges come too late. Because of his repeated failure to respond to discovery and comply with court orders, the district court found Richard in default. Even so, the court permitted Richard to testify at the hearing to decide the proper relief for the decree. And still, Richard did not contest most of the valuations, the inclusion of the proceeds, or the award of his undivided retirement accounts. So any error on these issues is not preserved for our appellate review. On the two factual issues that are arguably preserved—the valuation of the commercial real estate and the silver bars proceeds—we affirm the district court because the valuations are within the permissible range of evidence. And based on the record before the district court, we agree that the property division and the $250,000 equalization payment is equitable. We also grant Jessica’s request for appellate attorney fees.
