comparable standard in Iowa

2022See In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (noting that a spousal support award should not destroy the right of the party providing the support to enjoy at least a comparable standard of living as well).

2017See In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983); see also In re Marriage of Shepperd, No. 14-1766, 2015 WL 7075750 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015) (“The amount of spousal support awarded should not destroy the right of the party providing the support to also enjoy a comparable standard of living.”).

2015See In re Marriage of Tzortzoudakis, 507 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (stating “the ability of the one spouse to pay should be balanced against the needs of the other spouse”); In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 4 347, 351 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (stating a party is entitled to receive support only in an amount sufficient to maintain the standard of living previously enjoyed without destroying the other party’s right to enjoy a comparable standard of living).

2015See In re Marriage of Tzortzoudakis, 507 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (stating that the parties’ needs must be balanced); In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (stating that a party is entitled to receive support only in an amount sufficient to maintain the standard of living previously enjoyed without destroying the other party’s right to enjoy a comparable standard of living).

2023In other words, the lower- earning spouse is entitled to support “in a manner as closely resembling the standards existing during the marriage as possible without destroying the right of 7 the party providing the income to enjoy at least a comparable standard of living as well.” In re Marriage of Stark, 542 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted).

2023Still, we agree with the district court that Ron’s ability to pay is an appropriate consideration as the entitlement of spousal support should be awarded “without destroying the right of the party providing the income to enjoy at least a comparable standard of living as well.” In re Marriage of Stark, 542 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).

2023Michael notes that, under In re Marriage of Gust, the court found the purpose of traditional alimony is “to provide the receiving spouse with support comparable to what he or she would receive if the marriage continued.” 858 N.W.2d 402, 408 (quoting In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997)).

2019See Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 415 (finding “spousal support would be necessary for her to live in a fashion approaching her lifestyle during the marriage”); see also Mauer, 874 N.W.2d at 111 (finding “no reason to believe [the wife’s] earnings will ever increase such that she will become capable of earning enough to maintain a comparable standard of living to that she enjoyed during her marriage”).

2019See Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 415 (finding “spousal support would be necessary for her to live in a fashion approaching her lifestyle during the marriage”); see also Mauer, 874 N.W.2d at 111 (finding “no reason to believe [the wife’s] earnings will ever increase such that she will become capable of earning enough to maintain a comparable standard of living to that she enjoyed during her marriage”).

2018See Mauer, 874 N.W.2d at 111 .

2016See Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d at 484–87.

2014“A trial court has considerable latitude when making an award of spousal support.” In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481, 486 (Iowa 2012).

2015See, e.g., In re Loomis, 905 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind.2009) (finding violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when name was used in "professional documents, communications, signage, telephone directory listings, numerous advertisements, and an internet website”); In re Oldtowne Legal Clinic, P.A., 285 Md. 132 , 400 A.2d 1111 , 1115 & n. 4 (1979) (refusing to approve proposed trade name as in violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when firm intended to use the name "so that ... clients would not know that there was any connection between it” and another law office); Cincinnati Bar

2015See, e.g., In re Loomis, 905 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind. 2009) (finding violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when name was used in “professional documents, communications, signage, telephone directory listings, numerous advertisements, and an internet website”); In re Oldtowne Legal Clinic, P.A., 400 A.2d 1111 , 1115 & n.4 (Md. 1979) (refusing to approve proposed trade name as in violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when firm intended to use the name “so that . . . clients would not know that there was any connection between it” and another law office); Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v

2015See, e.g., In re Loomis, 905 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind.2009) (finding violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when name was used in "professional documents, communications, signage, telephone directory listings, numerous advertisements, and an internet website”); In re Oldtowne Legal Clinic, P.A., 285 Md. 132 , 400 A.2d 1111 , 1115 & n. 4 (1979) (refusing to approve proposed trade name as in violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when firm intended to use the name "so that ... clients would not know that there was any connection between it” and another law office); Cincinnati Bar

2015See, e.g., In re Loomis, 905 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind. 2009) (finding violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when name was used in “professional documents, communications, signage, telephone directory listings, numerous advertisements, and an internet website”); In re Oldtowne Legal Clinic, P.A., 400 A.2d 1111 , 1115 & n.4 (Md. 1979) (refusing to approve proposed trade name as in violation of rule prohibiting use of trade names when firm intended to use the name “so that . . . clients would not know that there was any connection between it” and another law office); Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v

2023Michael notes that, under In re Marriage of Gust, the court found the purpose of traditional alimony is “to provide the receiving spouse with support comparable to what he or she would receive if the marriage continued.” 858 N.W.2d 402, 408 (quoting In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997)).

2004See Grefe & Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821 , 825 *91 (Iowa 1994).

2004See Grefe & Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Iowa 1994).