dissipation doctrine (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

dissipation doctrine in Iowa

21 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 9 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
In RE the Marriage of Diana L. Kimbro and Steven C. Kimbro Upon the Petition of Diana L. Kimbrogreen
iowa · 2013 · cited in 16 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025
2 sentences

2025See In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2013) (setting out a two-prong test for courts to use in analyzing claims arising under the dissipation doctrine).

2025See In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 , 700–01 (Iowa 2013) (applying the dissipation doctrine when a spouse’s conduct during separation results in the loss of property otherwise subject to division with the remedy of treating the value of the lost property as being owned by the spouse who wasted it).

816
In Re Marriage of Fennelly & Breckenfeldergreen
iowa · 2007 · cited in 8 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025
2 sentences

2019Legally, the dissipation doctrine applies only “when a spouse’s conduct during the period of separation ‘results in the loss or disposal of property otherwise subject to division at the time of divorce.’” Kimbro, 737 N.W.2d at 702-02 (emphasis added) (quoting In re Marriage of Burgess, 568 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997)).

2019See Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 106 (stating the dissipation doctrine does not apply if the spending spouse used the monies for “legitimate household and business expenses”).

68
In Re the Marriage of Burgessgreen
iowactapp · 1997 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2013–2019
2 sentences

2019Legally, the dissipation doctrine applies only “when a spouse’s conduct during the period of separation ‘results in the loss or disposal of property otherwise subject to division at the time of divorce.’” Kimbro, 737 N.W.2d at 702-02 (emphasis added) (quoting In re Marriage of Burgess, 568 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997)).

2018“The dissipation doctrine applies when a spouse’s conduct during the period of separation ‘results in the loss or disposal of property otherwise subject to division at the time of divorce.’” Id. at 700–01 (quoting In re Marriage of Burgess, 568 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997)).

23
In Re the Marriage of Goodwingreen
iowa · 2000 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019See In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 , 700–01 (Iowa 2013) (discussing the dissipation doctrine); Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 104 (“[D]issipation of assets is a proper consideration when dividing property.”); In re Marriage of Goodwin, 606 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Iowa 2000) (“[A] spouse’s disposal of assets that would otherwise be subject to division in the dissolution may properly be considered in making an equitable distribution of the parties’ property.”).

2019See In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 , 700–01 (Iowa 2013) (discussing the dissipation doctrine); Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 104 (“[D]issipation of assets is a proper consideration when dividing property.”); In re Marriage of Goodwin, 606 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Iowa 2000) (“[A] spouse’s disposal of assets that would otherwise be subject to division in the dissolution may properly be considered in making an equitable distribution of the parties’ property.”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IA § Iowa Code § 598.21 (12) IA § Iowa Code § 598.21A (6)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IA 21 (2013–2025) IL 13 (1987–2025) MD 5 (1996–2025) UT 2 (2023–2024) AK 2 (2022–2024) CT 2 (2024–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check