Re Marriage of Olson Essay

In this instance, a spouse appealed the dissolution decision in an effort to reduce the amount of support he was required to give to his wife. When she was 66 years old, her husband’s salary was declining and fluctuating, which contributed to a change in her circumstances. (Guy and Mary).

After delivering the judgment, the Iowa Supreme Court discussed the divorce and insurance issues. Mary and Guy had five children after their 1980 wedding. In 2002, the pair split apart. In March of the same year, Guy made a request to terminate their union. After the matter was reviewed in December 2003, the marriage was annulled on December 18. Guy benefits were divided equally between the two individuals. The district court ordered the husband to donate 1535 dollars each month for the three minor children, 1288 dollars every month for two children, and 877 dollars per month for 1 child. The payments were based on Guy’s type of business and the expense of extra time designated to him, as well as his physical well-being. Mary was awarded 1,000 dollars per month maintenance, which will continue until the child support ends or she remarries. The husband was to pay 100,000 dollars life insurance to Mary as long as he obtained life insurance from his employer (Guy and Mary).

In most marriage cases, the courts agree on offering child support to the spouse (Simkovic 33). The district court based the child support award on Guy’s present job and his working of at least 300 to 400 hours overtime in a year. Guy’s overtime income was considered while calculating the alimony since a man needed to work extra time to get money to support his children. The Supreme Court acknowledged the district court verdict regarding the property allotment, child support, in addition to the attorney charges. However, The Supreme Court appeals altered the district court verdict by giving Mary rehabilitative maintenance of 1,000 dollars for every month for approximately four years. The allowance does not increase when the child support terminates and it ends if Mary passes away, get married again or cohabitates with a man (Guy and Mary).

The factors the Iowa courts take into account when deciding whether or not a solution of financial support is appropriate to an individual include, 1) Child maintenance is a payment to a wife in lieu of the husband’s statutory obligation for support. 2) Financial support is not a complete right and a verdict. Thus, it depends on the contexts of an exact situation. 3) The components organized in Iowa Code segment 598.21(3) are used when formulating or rejecting a financial support verdict. The Supreme Court’s decision on the trial court large extent in forming this agreement will hinder the decision only when there has been a failure to do justice (Guy and Mary).

In this case, the applicable factors were (1) the marriage period; (2) the age of a spouse and bodily and emotional well-being of the participants; (3) the allocation of assets; (4) the level of education of each participant at the time they were getting married and the time of divorce; (5) the income capacity of the participant seeking alimony.

The types of support considered by the court include Traditional support, Rehabilitative maintenance. The state authorities will tax Mary’s support, and Guy will remain untaxed. The court concluded that Mary was entitled to traditional alimony because of the minimal property distribution, her poor health, the length of the marriage, and the disparity in earning potential. If she spends the support on gambling she will face the consequences (Guy and Mary). The statutory purpose of the dissolution act in the court of appeal was to remove fault-based standards for termination of marriages. The guilty party concept as well as the consideration of evidence of the parties’ behavior must be eliminated. Therefore, Mary’s gambling dilemma would be improper under part 598.21(3). The court concluded that Mary was entitled to support because of the factors presented forward in Iowa Code part 598.21(3). These aspects provided an indication that Mary had to obtain traditional maintenance because of the minimal property allocation, her well-being, the marriage period, and the difference in income potential (Guy and Mary).

Finally, Justice Carter’s concurring opinion helped in reinforcing the judgment because she did not believe that Mary’s gambling provided a basis for altering the property settlement and alimony award made by the district court. However, Carter disagrees with the court’s categorical and extensive assertion eliminating any deliberation of a party’s unsuitable conduct in the direction of the other party in a matrimonial relationship as a factor to be considered in the allotment of possessions or providing the child support (Guy and Mary).

Works cited

Guy V. OLSON and Mary C. Olson. 495-496 Supreme Court of Iowa, 2005.

Simkovic, Michael “The Knowledge Tax”. University of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 82, no. 19, 2015, p. 33.