In re the Marriage of Snyder ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0438
Filed March 2, 2022
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOHN G. SNYDER, JR.
AND BETH K. SNYDER
Upon the Petition of
JOHN G. SNYDER, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
BETH K. SNYDER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Bradley J. Harris,
Judge.
A former spouse appeals from a decree of dissolution of marriage, claiming
the district court improperly enforced a premarital agreement and awarded an
insufficient duration of spousal support. AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany and Mark D. Fisher of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant.
Benjamin M. Lange of Swisher & Cohrt, P.L.C., Independence, for appellee.
Heard by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, J.J.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Beth Phillips, formerly known as Beth Snyder, appeals from a decree
dissolving her marriage to John Snyder. She claims the district court improperly
enforced a premarital agreement and awarded her insufficient spousal support.
Both Beth and John request an award of appellate attorney fees. On our de novo
review, we find the district court properly enforced the premarital agreement and
awarded Beth an equitable amount of spousal support. We decline an award of
appellate attorney fees. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Beth and John began dating and living together in 1991. Beth was a
registered respiratory therapist. Her license lapsed in 2003. John has worked for
ADM Corn Processing since 1997, most recently as a production supervisor. John
and Beth resided together until 2003 and then separated. They reconciled in 2004.
Upon their reconciliation, Beth moved into John’s home. Beth, at John’s urging,
went through bankruptcy proceedings when the parties reconciled to discharge
debts from a previous marriage. Beth also began a new job at Walmart.
John proposed to Beth in February 2005, with plans to be married in Las
Vegas in April of the same year. John, concerned with Beth’s financial
mismanagement, contacted an attorney in early March to draft a premarital
agreement. While both parties agree that John indicated the agreement was a
necessary condition to marriage, they disagree over what would happen had Beth
refused to sign the agreement. Beth contends it would have ended the relationship
altogether, while John suggests Beth’s refusal would simply maintain the status
quo and they would have continued the relationship as an unmarried couple.
3
Beth and John met with John’s attorney in mid-March. They both read the
agreement and hand-wrote lists of assets and liabilities for the disclosure
statement.1 While values were not assigned to the assets and liabilities, John
wrote a note on the agreement indicating that his attorney had complete financial
statements available for Beth to view. The premarital agreement largely sought to
keep John and Beth’s property separate, obtained both prior to and during the
marriage.
John’s attorney recommended Beth obtain her own counsel, which she did.
Beth, through her attorney, requested a slight modification to the agreement,
allowing her to keep her engagement ring and wedding band if the marriage lasted
for a period of five years. The agreement was executed on March 31, and John
and Beth were married on April 2. When they executed the agreement, they had
booked airline tickets and invited a few family members to the wedding, but they
had not reserved a chapel.
During their marriage, both parties were employed and kept separate bank
accounts. They remained residing in John’s home for the duration of their
marriage. John paid the mortgage and the majority of shared costs, including the
purchase of additional land around the home and renovation costs. Beth paid
some of the household expenses, specifically the electric and cable/phone bill.
Both John and Beth had adult children from previous marriages. No minor children
resided with John and Beth after the parties married. At the time of the divorce
proceedings, John earned substantially more than Beth. After working for
1Beth’s disclosure does not list individual assets and liabilities, stating only that
both were minimal due to a recent bankruptcy filing.
4
Walmart, Beth worked briefly for Goodwill where she earned about $40,000 a year.
She left Goodwill to work at Alpha in late 2020, making approximately $20,000 a
year.2 John earns roughly $110,000 a year.
John and Beth separated in August 2019. A trial was held on John’s
petition for dissolution of the marriage and Beth’s counterclaim on February 5,
2021. The court entered its decree on February 24, finding the premarital
agreement controlled the distribution of property, resulting in John receiving the
property in his name and Beth receiving the property in her name. The property
held as joint tenants was divided equally. The court ordered that John pay $2000
a month in spousal support for thirty months. John was also ordered to pay the
remainder of Beth’s attorney fees in the amount of $5162.50. This award was in
addition to the previous temporary attorney fee award in Beth’s favor. Beth filed a
motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904 for reconsideration of the
court’s decree, which was denied. Beth now appeals, attacking the property
distribution and spousal support provisions of the decree.
II. Standard of Review
“Dissolution proceedings are equitable actions, which we review de novo.”
In re Marriage of Shanks, 758 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Iowa 2008). Our de novo review
extends to “issues concerning the validity and construction of premarital
agreements.” Id. at 511. The party challenging the validity of the agreement bears
the burden of proving it is unenforceable. In re Est. of Kloster, No. 20-1245, 2021
WL 3076546, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 21, 2021). While our review of spousal
2 Beth’s reduced salary, at least in part, stems from a voluntary reduction in hours
to spend more time with her grandchildren.
5
support is also de novo, “we accord the trial court considerable latitude.” In re
Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2015) (quoting In re Marriage of
Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Iowa 2005)). “We will disturb the trial court’s order
‘only when there has been a failure to do equity.’” Id. (quoting Olson, 705 N.W.2d
at 315).
III. Analysis
Beth raises several claims on appeal. First, she alleges the premarital
agreement is unenforceable. She also claims the district court should have
awarded her traditional spousal support. Both parties request an award of
appellate attorney fees.
A. Enforceability of the Prenuptial Agreement
“In general, premarital agreements ‘are favored in the law and should be
construed liberally to carry out the intention of the parties.” In re Estate of Rhoten,
No. 18-0753, 2019 WL 1056831, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019) (quoting In re
Marriage of Van Brocklin, 468 N.W.2d 40, 45 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991)). Such
“agreements are construed, considered, and treated in the same manner as
ordinary contracts.” Id. Iowa Code section 596.8 (2021) provides three grounds
for challenging the enforceability of a premarital agreement: (1) the agreement was
not entered into voluntarily; (2) the agreement was unconscionable when
executed; and (3) the person challenging the agreement’s validity was not provided
a “fair and reasonable” disclosure of the other spouse’s property and obligations,
and the person “did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate
knowledge of the” other spouse’s financial assets and obligations. Beth challenges
the enforceability of the agreement on all three grounds.
6
1. Voluntariness
Our supreme court has recognized two avenues for establishing an
agreement was involuntary: duress and undue influence. See Shanks, 758
N.W.2d at 512. Duress renders an agreement unenforceable when “(1) one party
issues a wrongful or unlawful threat and (2) the other party had no reasonable
alternative to entering the [agreement].” Id. “Undue influence is influence that
deprives one person of his or her freedom of choice and substitutes the will of
another in its place.” In re Marriage of Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d 309, 318 (Iowa 1996)
superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at
512.
Beth claims she acted under duress because of the temporal proximity to
the wedding and her belief that John would terminate the relationship if she
refused. John testified that the premarital agreement was a condition to the
marriage. However, our courts have consistently held such an ultimatum is not
unlawful. See Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at 512-13; Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d at 318 (“A.J.’s
threat here . . . was he would not marry Sara if she did not sign the prenuptial
agreement. We find this threat neither wrongful nor unlawful.”). We have also
previously held that temporal proximity to the wedding day does not render an
agreement unenforceable so long as the party has adequate time to meaningfully
consider the contract. Compare In re Marriage of Elam, No. 03-0221, 2004 WL
370247, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2004) (“Even if Ed had only seen the
agreement the day prior to the wedding, as he claims, such would be insufficient,
standing alone, to invalidate it.”), with In re Marriage of Maifield, No. 03-0326, 2004
WL 61108, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2004) (finding an agreement that was
7
“couched in legalistic terms and would not necessarily be understandable to a lay
person,” which was presented the night before the wedding while the spouse was
entertaining guests, “provided no meaningful opportunity to seek counsel” and was
therefore unenforceable).
Additionally, cancelling the wedding is generally a reasonable alternative
despite the temporal proximity to the wedding day and potential social
embarrassment cancellation may cause. Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at 512-13. That is
particularly true here, where Beth had time to obtain counsel and consider the
terms of the agreement, only a handful of family members were invited, and the
chapel had not been reserved yet. See In re Marriage of Holtkamp, No. 17-0940,
2018 WL 5292084, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2018) (finding that cancellation is
a reasonable alternative particularly for a “very small wedding”).
While Beth testified to her belief that John would end their relationship if she
refused to sign the agreement, John testified that he simply would have cancelled
the wedding and the parties would have continued dating and cohabitating. The
district court implicitly found John to be the more credible witness.3 We give weight
to the district court’s credibility assessments. See Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at 511.
Moreover, Beth and John had a lengthy history of cohabitating prior to marriage,
indicating it was a reasonable alternative. Accordingly, we find that John did not
unlawfully threaten Beth to sign the agreement, and that Beth had the reasonable
3 For instance, the court found that the parties had not reserved a chapel at the
time of executing the premarital agreement based on John’s testimony despite
Beth’s testimony to the contrary.
8
alternative of cancelling the wedding and maintaining the status quo of
cohabitating.
Similarly, Beth fails to establish undue influence. Beth had time to review
the agreement and obtain independent legal counsel. Moreover, Beth, through
her counsel, requested and obtained at least one revision to the agreement.
Again, John’s insistence that the marriage was conditioned on the agreement, as
well as the short time until the wedding, is inadequate to demonstrate an “improper
or wrongful constraint, machination, or urgency of persuasion required for a finding
of undue influence.” See id. at 513 (quotation and citation omitted). Finally, Beth
does not suggest that John misinformed or tried to influence her understanding of
the terms of the agreement. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 561 N.W.2d
94, 97 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (finding an agreement unenforceable because one
spouse relied on the translation of the contract by the other spouse, which caused
a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms and importance of the contract).
Consequently, Beth failed to establish that she entered into the agreement
involuntarily.4
2. Unconscionability
“The concept of unconscionability includes both procedural and substantive
elements.” Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at 515. Procedural unconscionability generally
arises from “‘sharp practices[,] the use of fine print and convoluted language,’ as
well as ‘a lack of understanding and inequality of bargaining power.’” Id. (alteration
4 Beth’s claim that her attorney suggested most spouses “will tear up the prenup
after [eight] years” similarly does not render the contract involuntary because John
never suggested the contract would cease to be in effect at some point in the
future.
9
in original) (quoting Rite Color Chem. Co. v. Velvet Textile Co., 411 S.E.2d 645,
648 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992)). In contrast, substantive unconscionability is found when
the terms of an agreement “are so harsh or oppressive ‘such as no [person] in
[their] senses and not under delusion would make’ such a bargain.” Id. at 516
(alterations in original) (quoting Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa
1979)). Beth alleges the premarital agreement was both procedurally
unconscionable—largely for the same reasons as her voluntariness claims—and
substantively unconscionable due to John receiving a majority of the assets.
In determining procedural unconscionability, we consider several factors,
including the party challenging the agreement’s opportunity to seek independent
counsel, the “relative sophistication of the parties in legal and financial matters,”
the temporal proximity of the agreement to the wedding day, and the use of
confusing or technical language. Id. at 517. Beth had the opportunity to, and in
fact did, seek independent counsel. While the agreement was presented to Beth
close to the wedding, she had the opportunity to seek counsel, understand the
terms, and propose alterations to the agreement. Compare Shanks, 758 N.W.2d
at 518 (finding that the presentment of the agreement that was temporally close to
the wedding date did not render the agreement procedurally unconscionable when
the complaining party had enough time to seek counsel), with Holtkamp, 2018 WL
5292084, at *4 (noting the temporal proximity was significant because it limited the
party’s opportunity to obtain counsel). And while both parties agreed John was
more financially savvy than Beth, the agreement did not use highly technical or
confusing language, nor did it utilize “sharp practices” like fine print. See Kloster,
2021 WL 3076546, at *2-3 (finding that the challenging party failed to establish
10
procedural unconscionability where the contract language was not highly technical
and they had an opportunity to obtain counsel despite their relative lack of financial
and legal sophistication). Accordingly, the agreement was not procedurally
unconscionable.
Similarly, the agreement is not substantively unconscionable. Our courts
have recognized that “premarital agreements are typically financially one-sided in
order to protect the assets of one prospective spouse.” Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at
516. “Courts must resist the temptation to view disparity between the parties’
financial circumstances as requiring a finding of substantive unconscionability.” Id.Instead, “the focus of the substantive unconscionability analysis is upon whether
‘the provisions of the contract are mutual or the division of property is consistent
with the financial condition of the parties at the time of execution.” Id. (quoting
Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d at 316).
Here, “[t]he agreement basically sought to maintain the parties’ premarital
assets as separate property and to perpetuate their premarital financial conditions
throughout the marriage.” Id. John had substantially more assets than Beth at the
time of the agreement’s execution, in part due to her recent bankruptcy, but also
his frugal approach to finances. The instant division of property is consistent with
the parties’ relative financial conditions when the agreement was executed. The
agreement was mutual—both parties kept their respective assets separate. That
John is receiving the lion’s share of the assets does not render the agreement
substantively unconscionable.
11
3. Fair Disclosure
Beth alleges that John did not provide a fair and reasonable disclosure of
his assets because he did not assign specific values to the listed assets. In order
for a premarital agreement to be unenforceable on this ground, Beth must establish
that (1) John did not “provide a fair and reasonable disclosure” of his property and
financial obligations, and (2) she “did not have, or reasonably could not have had,
an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of” John. Iowa
Code § 596.8. Her claim fails on both elements.
First, “[w]e have never required that a party have precise valuations of the
other’s assets; a general knowledge of the true nature and extent of the other’s
properties is sufficient.” Rhoten, 2019 WL 1056831, at *3 (quoting Spiegel, 553
N.W.2d at 317). The requirement of fair disclosure is not an exacting one. Id.While John did omit one pension account, Beth similarly forgot to include a
retirement account provided by her employer. And both parties testified they were
aware the other had retirement accounts through their respective employers. John
adequately listed his assets, and the agreement included the means by which she
could obtain further financial documents that would include specific valuations.
Beth never inquired further into the financial documents, but they were reasonably
available to her.
Beth also testified that she knew John was employed and was aware he
received retirement benefits from his job, although she did not know the exact
value of either his income or retirement accounts. See Holtkamp, 2018 WL
5292084, at *5 (finding a spouse had adequate knowledge when she had a general
knowledge of her partner’s assets). She had lived at John’s home since reuniting
12
in 2004. We have noted that cohabitation can show the party’s general knowledge
of the other spouse’s financial position. In re Marriage of Crawford, No. 04-0770,
2004 WL 2805269, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2004). While Beth testified that
she did not know much of anything about John’s finances, going so far as to say
that John prohibited her from knowing anything about them, the length of their
cohabitation—since 1991, with a short separation in 2003-2004—suggests she
had plenty of opportunity to acquire the knowledge of John’s finances. She was
additionally provided an opportunity to review John’s financial statements prior to
the marriage. The premarital agreement also contained warranties that both
parties were “fully acquainted with the other’s means, resources, and income.”
See In re Marriage of Miller, No. 01-1973, 2002 WL 31312840, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
Oct. 16, 2002) (finding prior cohabitation and similar contractual language in the
agreement showed the spouse had adequate knowledge of the other’s assets).
The premarital agreement is thus enforceable.
4. Equity
Beth claims that even if the premarital agreement is otherwise valid, we
should render it unenforceable because it is inequitable. The sole case she cites
in support of this proposition is In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa
2013). However, that case does not hold that an otherwise valid premarital
agreement may be unenforceable merely because it is inequitable. Rather, the
case recognizes the long-standing practice of dividing property obtained through
gifts and inheritance between divorcing spouses when equity requires it.
McDermott, 827 N.W.2d at 678-79. Moreover, the case does not discuss
premarital agreements. Beth’s assertion lacks support in our case law.
13
Beth’s contention also appears to provide an alternative, less stringent
standard for substantive unconscionability. Rather than focusing on whether the
provisions are mutual and consistent with the parties’ financial positions when the
contract is executed, Beth would have this court look to whether the actual property
division was fair. This is directly contrary to our well-established case law. See
Shanks, 758 N.W.2d at 516 (“Courts must resist the temptation to view disparity
between the parties’ financial circumstances as requiring a finding of substantive
unconscionability.”).
Additionally, allowing a premarital agreement to be defeated because it is
inequitable is contrary to the statutory language of section 596.8. That section
delineates three methods of demonstrating the unenforceability of a premarital
contract: the party did not enter into it voluntarily, the contract is unconscionable,
or a lack of fair disclosure. The legislature could have included additional equitable
considerations, but did not. Thus, Beth’s claim is not supported by statute or case
law, and must fail.
B. Spousal Support
Beth claims the district court incorrectly limited her award of spousal support
to a period of thirty months.5 The district court ordered John to pay $2000 a month
for thirty months as a form of rehabilitative or transitional support. Beth contends
the court should have entered an award of traditional support, making the
5 John contends Beth was not entitled to any spousal support. However, John
failed to raise the issue as a cross-appeal. Consequently, we cannot consider it.
See Craft v. State, No. 12-0290, 2013 WL 1224099, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 27,
2013) (“A party that neither appeals nor cross-appeals can have no greater relief
or redress on appeal than was accorded it by the trial court.”) (quoting Boyd v.
Boyd & Boyd, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986)).
14
payments last until her death. Beth does not challenge the amount of the monthly
award. She points to the earning disparity between herself and John and the
length of their marriage as reasons for permanent support.
“[W]e accord the trial court considerable latitude” in spousal support
decisions. Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 406 (quoting Olson, 705 N.W.2d at 319). As a
result, “[w]e will disturb the trial court’s order ‘only when there has been a failure
to do equity.’” Id. (quoting Olson, 705 N.W.2d at 319). There is no absolute right
to spousal support. In re Marriage of Hansen, No. 17-0889, 2018 WL 4922992, at
*8 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2018). Further, “[f]inancial need, in and of itself, is not
sufficient reason to justify an award of spousal support.” In re Marriage of Gutcher,
No. 17-0593, 2018 WL 5292082, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2018). We look to
the particular facts of the case, recognizing that “precedent may be of little value
in deciding each case.” Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 408. When considering an award of
spousal support, we are guided by the factors set out in Iowa Code section
598.21A(1), including the length of the marriage, age and physical health of the
parties, property distribution, earning capacity, and the ability of the party seeking
an award to earn enough to support a “standard of living reasonably comparable
to that enjoyed during the marriage.”
Our supreme court recently addressed how alterations to tax law have
impacted awards of alimony:
Under recently enacted federal tax law, alimony payments are no
longer tax deductible and are not considered taxable income to the
person receiving them. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 115–97,
§ 11051, 131 Stat. 2054, 2089 (2017) (repealing 26 U.S.C. § 215).
As a result, the economic impact of alimony on the paying spouse is
greater today than it has been in the past. Prior caselaw allocating
percentages of income for alimony thus have less economic impact
15
on the payor than the allocation of a similar percentage of income to
alimony would have today under current tax law. Thus, by way of
example, in Gust, we awarded alimony that amounted to 31% of the
difference in income between the spouses. 858 N.W.2d at 412. If
the case were before us today on the same facts, a 31% award would
have a larger impact on the payor spouse in Gust because of the tax
law change.
In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15, 21 (Iowa 2020).
The district court did not fail to do equity by awarding Beth rehabilitative
support rather than traditional support. Beth and John were married for about
fifteen years, which is below the twenty-year threshold that generally merits
traditional support.6 Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 410-11. Additionally, this court has noted
that an income disparity is not on its own a reason to award traditional alimony
when the financially dependent party is capable of self-support: Traditional or
permanent alimony is usually only payable for life or for so long as the dependent
spouse is incapable of self-support. That is not the case here.
The fact one party may generate more income than the other is not the
controlling factor in the alimony award where both parties have the education and
potential to supply for themselves a very adequate living. In re Marriage of Borden,
No. 09-1148, 2010 WL 1050012, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2010); see also In
re Marriage of Hazen, 778 N.W.2d 55, 61 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (“Consequently, if
both parties are in reasonable health, as here, they need to earn up to their
capacities in order to pay their own present bills and not lean unduly on the other
party for support.”). We note that Beth’s earning potential, even absent further
6That Beth and John’s relationship lasted about twenty-four years is not relevant
because the statute instructs us to look at the length of the marriage, not the length
of a relationship or cohabitation. See In re Marriage of Ruiz, No. 09-0179, 2009
WL 2392393, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2009).
16
education, is substantially higher than her present income.7 See Borden, 2010 WL
1050012, at *4 (noting that the court should consider not just present income but
future earning capacity). Consequently, she can earn enough to be self-
supporting. While we recognize it is unlikely Beth will earn enough to have the
same living standard she enjoyed while married to John, the code instructs us to
consider a standard of living reasonably comparable to that of the marriage. See
Iowa Code §598.21A(1)(f). Thus, even ignoring the durational threshold,
traditional alimony is improper given Beth’s ability to support herself.
The award achieves the purpose of rehabilitative support by “supporting
[the] economically dependent spouse through a limited period of re-education or
retraining.” In re Marriage of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822, 826 (Iowa 2008) (quoting
In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 63 (Iowa 1989)). The award allows Beth
to obtain the two-year degree necessary to pursue a career in medical coding and
billing or office management, which Beth indicated she was interested in pursuing.
Those degrees would boost her earning capacity, further reducing the necessity
for ongoing support. See id. (“The goal of rehabilitative spousal support is self-
sufficiency . . . .”). Therefore, the district court appropriately weighed the factors
in section 598.21A when it awarded Beth spousal support of $2000 a month for
thirty months. The district court award was equitable.
C. Appellate Attorney Fees
Both parties request an award of attorney fees on appeal. “An award of
attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court’s discretion and the
7 While Beth makes roughly $20,000 a year at Alpha, she has earned
approximately $40,000 a year at Goodwill last year.
17
parties’ financial position.” In re Marriage of Kohorst, No. 19-0147, 2020 WL
564934, at *6, (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020). We “consider the needs of the party
making the request, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the party
making the request was obligated to defend the district court’s decision on appeal.”
Id. (citing In re Marriage of Ales, 592 N.W.2d 698, 704 (Iowa 1999)). Considering
these factors, we decline to award appellate attorney fees to either party.
AFFIRMED.