In re the Marriage of Heide ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0001
Filed October 5, 2022
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AIMEE J. HEIDE
AND JEFFREY T. HEIDE SR.
Upon the Petition of
AIMEE J. HEIDE,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
JEFFREY T. HEIDE SR.,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jeffrey A. Neary,
Judge.
A former husband appeals the decree dissolving his marriage. AFFIRMED.
Jacquelyn Johnson, Sioux City, for appellant.
Kelly J. Goslinga of Clabaugh & Goslinga, PLC, Sioux Center, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2022).
2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
This case has an unusual twist. The parties agree they got married, but
cannot agree on how, where, and when. Jeffrey Heide contends he and Aimee
Heide entered into a common law marriage when they had a destination wedding
in Costa Rica on June 5, 2013. Aimee argues they were married on July 13 when
they flew to Las Vegas and received a Nevada marriage certificate. The date is
important because the parties signed a pre-marital agreement on June 18 that
would only be valid if their marriage occurred on the later date in Las Vegas. The
district court held that the parties’ ceremony in Costa Rica did not establish a
common law marriage, their marriage commenced in Las Vegas on July 13, and
the pre-marital agreement was valid and controlling in their dissolution
proceedings. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the district court’s determination
that the parties did not enter into a common law marriage during their destination
wedding.
I. Factual and procedural background.
Jeffrey and Aimee were each previously married, had children, and were
divorced. They became acquainted while serving as volunteers for the Sioux
Center ambulance service in 2011. In 2012, they began discussing marriage and,
in September, Aimee contacted an attorney to prepare a pre-marital agreement.
A draft of the pre-marital agreement was sent to Jeffrey, and he responded with a
list of changes and inclusions he wanted. The agreement was completed and
ready for signing by May 2013. On January 17, 2013, Jeffrey signed a warranty
deed that conveyed an interest in his house to Aimee as tenants in common since
3
Aimee had financially contributed to the remodel of what was to be the marital
home. In the deed both were identified as “single” persons.
The parties planned a destination wedding on a beach in Costa Rica for
June 5, 2013. Because of logistical hassle, they did not obtain a marriage license
in Costa Rica. But there were all the trappings of a wedding on June 5. Many
friends and family members attended, including Aimee’s mother and father
identified in photos as “parents of the bride,” her son and two daughters, her two
sisters, her nieces, and Jeffrey’s children. Aimee assembled an album that
contained memorabilia of the ceremony, including the wedding program and
photos. These show what would be classified as a typical ceremony.1 The
program was entitled “Celebrating the Marriage of Jeffrey Heide and Aimee
Plasier.” Aimee is identified as the “bride,” who wore a white dress and was
accompanied by “bride’s maids.” There was a processional, and Aimee was
escorted down the aisle by her son. There was an exchange of marriage vows,
wedding rings, and a “[d]eclaration of [m]arriage.” There is a photo of “the wedding
party” and one on the beach after the ceremony of Aimee and Jeffrey where they
wrote in the sand “Just married.” A reception was held on the beach after the
ceremony.
Upon their return to Iowa, Jeffrey and Aimee held a reception for family and
friends who were unable to attend the ceremony in Costa Rica. They cohabitated
1 The officiant listed in the wedding program was Aimee’s niece. The record does
not disclose whether she would be recognized in Costa Rica as a person
authorized to conduct wedding ceremonies. Jeffrey does not contend that the
ceremony in Costa Rica met that country’s legal requirements so as to qualify for
issuance of a marriage certificate.
4
in their home and continued to wear their wedding rings. Aimee however
continued to use her last name of Plasier.
On June 18, Aimee and Jeffrey went to the attorney’s office and signed the
pre-marital agreement, which contained the following language: “contemplated
marriage”; “[a] marriage is intended and desired to be solemnized between the
parties.”; “the proposed marriage”; “[i]n anticipation of their marriage”; “[i]n
consideration of mutual covenants contained herein, prospective husband and
prospective wife agree as follows . . .”; “[t]his agreement is to become effective
only upon the solemnization of the marriage.” Also on that date, Jeffrey and Aimee
signed a warranty deed showing that “Jeffrey T. Heide, Sr., single, and Aimee
Plasier, single, hereby convey to Jeffrey T. Heide, Sr., and Aimee Plasier as joint
tenants with full rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.” The deed
also states the same address for both Aimee and Jeffrey.2
Jeffrey and Aimee traveled to Las Vegas and obtained a Nevada marriage
certificate on July 13, signed by the minister and one witness. Aimee’s maiden
name of “Plasier” appears on the certificate. Jeffrey testified that there was no
ceremony in Las Vegas and that both he and Aimee were still wearing the wedding
rings exchanged at the Costa Rica ceremony. When they returned to Iowa from
Las Vegas, Aimee used the Nevada marriage certificate to change her last name
to Heide and supplied it to her employer to have Jeffrey covered by her health
insurance program.
2The drafting attorney was not present when Aimee and Jeffrey signed the pre-
marital agreement and warranty deed. And she was not aware they held a
ceremony in Costa Rica.
5
Fast forward to July 7, 2020, Aimee filed her Petition for Dissolution of
Marriage. Jeffrey answered on August 10, 2020. Following a three-day trial in
June 2021, the district court judge in October 2021 filed a thorough, fifty-nine-page
dissolution decree in which all issues were addressed. The court found that the
parties did not enter into a common law marriage based upon the ceremony in
Costa Rica on June 5, 2013 and that their marriage commenced upon their
marriage ceremony in Las Vegas on July 13 when the Nevada marriage certificate
was issued. The court decided the pre-marital agreement signed by the parties on
June 13 was valid and controlling. Jeffrey filed a rule 1.904 motion to reconsider,
raising several issues, particularly the ruling on common law marriage and the pre-
marital agreement. Aimee also filed a post-trial motion to amend, modify, and
enlarge the decree but did not raise the common law marriage or pre-marital
agreement. On December 22, 2021, the district court denied Jeffrey’s motion,
leaving intact the ruling against a common law marriage and enforcement of the
pre-marital agreement. The court also addressed various issues raised by Aimee’s
motion. Jeffrey appeals.
II. Standard of review.
We review claims of a common law marriage de novo. In re Marriage of
Martin, 681 N.W.2d 612, 616 (Iowa 2004). Appellate courts review appeals
regarding dissolution of marriage de novo because such actions are equitable
proceedings. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006); see also
Iowa Code § 598.3 (2020); Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (“Review in equity cases shall
be de novo.”) In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of
witnesses, the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not
6
bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). Each case depends upon its own
unique facts; “precedents are not greatly valuable.” In re Marriage of Hiller &
Nelsen, No. 16-0997, 2017 WL 5185424, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8 2017).
III. Discussion.
A. Common law marriage claim.
In this appeal, Jeffrey continues to put forth his argument that he and Aimee
entered into a common law marriage at their destination wedding ceremony in
Costa Rica. The parties basically agree as to the facts and the law. It is on the
application of our law regarding common law marriage to those facts that they
disagree. Our supreme court has said:
Two forms of marriage are recognized in Iowa. One is
ceremonial, governed by statute. This form of marriage was
recognized in our first code in 1851 and the requirements established
then are essentially the same now. The second form of marriage is
informal, known as a common law marriage. This type of marriage
has been recognized in Iowa for well over a century. Although a
common law marriage is as valid as a ceremonial marriage, there is
no public policy favoring this type of marriage. Thus, claims of
common law marriage are carefully scrutinized and the burden of
proof rests with the party asserting the claim.
Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 616–17 (internal citations omitted).
To have a common law marriage, three elements must be met: (1) present
intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public
declaration that the parties are spouses. Johnson-Conklin v. MacMillan Oil Co.,
557 N.W.2d 102, 105 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). The agreement can be either express
or implied. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 617. Circumstantial evidence may be relied
upon to demonstrate a common law marriage. Marriage of Winegard, 257 N.W.2d
609, 617 (Iowa 1977).
7
1. Continuous cohabitation.
We first address this element as Aimee does not contest its existence.
“Although [continuous cohabitation] is circumstantial evidence of a common law
marriage, it cannot alone establish a common law marriage.” Martin, 681 N.W.2d
at 617. The district court found that “[g]iven the fact that Aimee’s name was on the
deed prior to the ceremony in Costa Rica, it is likely that they were living in the
same residence and that she had unrestricted access to the house.” In addition,
when Jeffrey and Aimee returned to Iowa after the Costa Rica ceremony, they
continued to cohabitate in the residence. On June 18, days after the Costa Rica
ceremony, Aimee’s address on the warranty deed is listed as the same as
Jeffrey’s. We agree that Jeffrey established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the cohabitation element was met.
2. Public declaration that the parties are spouses.
Our supreme court has held that the public declaration is the “acid test” of
the common law marriage in Iowa because there can be “no secret common law
marriage.” Winegard, 257 N.W.2d at 616. Factors used to determine if a couple
is holding themselves out as married are: failing to deny there is a marriage,
allowing the other party to use their last name, showing them as their spouse on
insurance, making hotel reservations as “Mr. and Mrs.,” and by witnesses testifying
to the general reputation of the couple as married. Id. Simply holding one’s self
out as married to the public is not always sufficient to create a common law
marriage, but it is circumstantial evidence that a common law marriage exists.
Johnson-Conklin, 557 N.W.2d at 105. Parties may hold themselves out as married
in some circumstances and single in others. This can particularly be true when the
8
parties change their marriage status based on whether it is convenient for them to
be single or married. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 618 (finding that the couple did not
have a common law marriage because they only publicly presented themselves as
married based on personal convenience).
Jeffrey points to the fact that during the Costa Rica ceremony he and Aimee
said the words and performed the traditions of a wedding, including exchanging
marriage vows and wedding rings. The question is whether going through an
unofficial ceremony constitutes a public declaration that the parties are spouses.
Since most claims of common law marriage do not involve a wedding ceremony,
the courts have established factors set out above for determining if the parties have
publicly presented themselves as married. When it comes to the Costa Rica
ceremony, it depends on whether the parties’ intended it to be a basis for a
common law marriage.
Based upon the facts here, we conclude the destination wedding ceremony
in Costa Rica was for show and not a true public declaration of a marriage. Jeffrey
concedes that he and Aimee were not “officially” married in Costa Rica. He
acknowledges that both he and Aimee did not want to go through the “hassle” of
obtaining a marriage license in Costa Rica, no marriage certificate was issued, and
the wedding “officiant” was Aimee’s niece, presumably not one authorized to
perform an official wedding in Costa Rica.
We acknowledge that following the Costa Rica ceremony, there is additional
evidence of a public declaration. Both Jeffrey and Aimee continued to wear the
wedding rings they exchanged in Costa Rica. Also, upon their return to Iowa, a
second wedding reception was held for those who did not travel to Costa Rica.
9
However, we find these do not overcome the evidence discussed below that show
Jeffrey and Aimee did not intend the Costa Rica ceremony to initiate a common
law marriage.
3. Present intent and agreement to be married.
In line with the nature of a contract, it is crucial for there to be a present
intent to be married in order to establish common law marriage. In re Allen’s
Estate, 100 N.W. 2d 10, 13 (Iowa 1959). To have present intent and agreement
the couple may subjectively or objectively intend to be married in the present.
Winegard, 257 N.W.2d at 616. The intent to be married in the future is not
sufficient. In re Fisher’s Est., 176 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Iowa 1970). As the district
court found, “the fact that Jeffrey states they got the statutory marriage done in Las
Vegas to avoid the complications and fees of doing it in Costa Rica indicates that
he knew at the time of the ceremony that the intention was for the future statutory
marriage.” We agree with the district court finding in this regard. Additional
evidence as to the parties’ intent is reflected in the fact that they both signed the
pre-marital agreement as single persons on June 18, after they had returned from
Costa Rica. And on the same date, both signed a second warranty deed as to the
marital home, where they were both again designated as single persons. Aimee
used her last name of Plasier on the Nevada wedding license and continued to
use that last name until she legally changed it to Heide after obtaining the Las
Vegas marriage certificate.3 Aimee also did not add Jeffrey as a dependent on her
3There are two ways Aimee could have changed her last name to Heide. If she
and Jeffrey had applied for a marriage license in Iowa, Iowa Code section 595.5
would allow her to change her name as part of that process. Since they did not
apply for an Iowa marriage license, we can only assume Aimee pursued her name
10
employment health insurance until after the Las Vegas marriage. All of the indicia
leads us to the conclusion that Jeffrey and Aimee did not enter into a common law
marriage at their destination wedding ceremony in Costa Rica. They were instead
legally married in Las Vegas. The pre-marital agreement was therefore timely
signed on June 18, and the district court correctly found it applied to the division of
assets in the dissolution action.
B. Appellate attorney fee request.
Both Jeffrey and Aimee request that the court award them appellate
attorney fees. In determining whether to award appellate attorney fees, we
consider the needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to
pay, and the relative merits of the appeal. In re Marriage of McDermott, 827
N.W.2d 671, 687 (Iowa 2013). Appellate attorney fees are not a matter of right,
but rest in our discretion. Id. After carefully considering each of these factors, we
determine no award of attorney fees in this appeal is appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
change as authorized under Iowa Code section 674.1. Notice of the petition to
change name must be served on the spouse. See Iowa Code § 674.6. Jeffrey
would have had notice when Aimee sought her name change to Heide. And one
spouse’s acquiescence to another spouse’s change of name is a factor that bears
on the existence of a marital relationship. See Winegard, 257 N.W.2d at 616.
Aimee and Jeffrey did not go through the name change process until after the Las
Vegas trip.