In Re the Marriage of Sandi I. Hansen and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, and Concerning Andrew J. Hansen (2016)

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (“[A]ppreciation in the value of assets during the marriage is a marital asset.”).

Rather, property brought into the marriage by a party is merely a factor among many to be considered under section 598.21(5). “[T]his factor may justify full credit, but does not require it.” Hansen, 886 N.W.2d at 872 (citations omitted).

Rather, it is often equitable to simply award the property to the party that brought it into the marriage.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016); see also Iowa Code § 598.21 (5)(a), (b) (requiring consideration of “[t]he length of the marriage” and “[t]he property brought to the marriage by each party”).

See Hansen, 886 N.W.2d at 873 (“But to achieve equity, the division need not be equal in most short-term marriages.

“We have stated that the claim of a party to the premarital property 5 owned by the other spouse in a short-term marriage is ‘minimal at best.’” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted).

“Upon the request of either parent, the court may award joint physical care unless such an arrangement is not in the best interests of the children.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016); accord Iowa Code § 598.41 (5)(a).

See Iowa Code § 598.21 (5)(b) (2016); Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 102 (Iowa 2007); In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

We discussed the award of premarital property in In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016), noting, “We have stated that the claim of a party to the premarital property owned by the other spouse in a short- 19 term marriage is ‘minimal at best.’” (Citing In re Marriage of Dean, 642 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002) (one year); In re Marriage of Peiffer, No. 12–1746, 2013 WL 5498153 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2013) (seven years)).

Thus, we generally include in the property to be divided “not only property acquired during the marriage by one or both of the parties, but property owned prior to the marriage by a party.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (noting property brought into the marriage is one of many factors to weigh in the equitable division of property).

“We review cases tried in equity, such as dissolution proceedings, de novo.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each circumstance.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

“We review cases tried in equity, such as dissolution proceedings, de novo.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (“[I]t is often equitable to simply award the property to the party that brought it into the marriage.”).

And “the claim of a party to the premarital property owned by the other spouse in a short-term marriage is ‘minimal at best.’” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa 2016) (citation omitted) (four years); see In re Marriage of Peiffer, No. 12-1746, 2013 WL 5498153 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2013) (seven years).

Rather, it is often equitable to simply award the property to the party that brought it into the marriage.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016); see also Iowa Code § 598.21 (5)(a), (b) (requiring consideration of “[t]he length of the marriage” and “[t]he property brought to the marriage by each party”).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

We start by considering four factors: “(1) stability, continuity of caregiving, and approximation; (2) ‘the ability of the [parents] to communicate and show mutual respect’; (3) ‘the degree of conflict between parents’; and (4) ‘the degree to which the parents are in general agreement about their approach to daily matters.’” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (quoting In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007)).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (“We will disturb the district court’s ruling only when there has been a failure to do equity.”). 2.

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (quoting In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Iowa 2007)); but see Iowa Code § 598.21 (6) (except if refusal to divide the inherited or gifted property is inequitable to the other party or to the children).

In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

Because there was no default here, the Huston exception does not apply. 5 did not raise the argument in his Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion before the district court); In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (“We also note that Andy has not preserved error on this issue as the district court did not address who may be entitled to a surplus or who may be obligated to pay a deficiency.”); In re Marriage of McGachey, No. 14-2086, 2015 WL …

To decide whether joint physical care is appropriate, we consider four factors: “(1) stability, continuity of caregiving, and approximation; (2) ‘the ability of the spouses to communicate and show mutual respect’; (3) ‘the degree of conflict between parents’; and (4) ‘the degree to which the parents are in general agreement about their approach to daily matters.’” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (quoting In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d…

In determining whether joint physical care is appropriate, we consider “(1) stability, continuity of caregiving, and approximation; (2) ‘the ability of the spouses to communicate and show mutual respect’; (3) ‘the degree of conflict between parents’; and (4) ‘the degree to which the parents are in general agreement about their approach to daily matters.’” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted).

“Legitimate business expenses may be deducted from income for purposes of determining child support.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (citing Gaer, 476 N.W.2d at 329 (“[S]ome consideration must be given to business expenses reasonably necessary to maintain the business or 7 occupation.”)).

We note, “the claim of a party to the premarital property owned by the other spouse in a short-term marriage is ‘minimal at best.’” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (quoting In re Marriage of Dean, 642 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002)).

In equitably dividing the parties’ property, the court considers the factors provided in Iowa Code section 598.21(5).[8] In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016); Naylor, 2018 WL 5850223 , at *3 (explaining “in marriages of short duration, our courts are inclined to restore the parties to the status quo ante or are inclined to at least trend toward the status quo ante” and collecting cases).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 876-77 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (explaining error preservation rules require an issue to be both raised and decided before we will consider the issue on appeal); see also In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 871-72 (Iowa App. Ct. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (applying the factors outlined in the subsection to physical-care decisions).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (“We have stated that the claim of a party to the premarital property owned by the other spouse in a short-term marriage is ‘minimal at best.’” (citation omitted)).

See In re Marriage of Hansen , 886 N.W.2d 868 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

See In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (noting that to achieve equity between the parties in a short-term 5 marriage, an equalization payment is not always required).