For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
In re the Marriage of Nichols and Mauro
Charles F. Nichols, Petitioner-Appellant
Mary E. Molloy Mauro, Respondent-Appellee
Attorney for Appellant
Robert A. Nading II and James T. Munro
Attorney for Appellee
Judy D. Johnson
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (13 pages)
Charles Nichols appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his marriage dissolution petition for failing to prove a common-law marriage with Mary Molloy Mauro. OPINION HOLDS: While Nichols has much evidence on his side, he has not carried his burden to prove a common-law marriage. On balance, the parties’ shifting assertions of married and single status in various contexts reflect an intent to serve their personal convenience or financial benefit—not a present intent and agreement to be married. Given the close merits of this appeal and the relative financial circumstances of the parties, we decline Molloy Mauro’s request for appellate attorney fees.
