## Facts

- Craig and Ralane Probasco married in 1985 while in college; both earned business degrees in 1986, and neither financed the other’s education.
- In 1989, the couple pursued a Perkins Restaurant franchise; Craig focused on obtaining and operating it, while Ralane maintained paid employment to support the family and assisted with franchise-related efforts.
- The franchise became highly successful, with annual sales approaching $4 million.
- Craig petitioned for dissolution in 1999; disputed economic issues included valuation and division of the franchise and whether spousal support should be awarded to Ralane.
- The district court valued the franchise using a fair-market-value approach and awarded net assets of about $801,082 to Ralane and $716,070 to Craig.
- The district court also ordered Craig to pay Ralane $60,000 per year for 13 years, characterizing the award as reimbursement for her contributions and sacrifices connected to Craig’s acquisition and success of the franchise.
- Craig appealed the spousal support award; Ralane cross-appealed aspects of the property division and alimony.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the economic provisions de novo, giving weight to, but not being bound by, the district court’s factual findings.

## Issues

1. Whether reimbursement-type alimony was proper in addition to a substantial property award that already reflected the value of the franchise and the recipient spouse’s marital contributions.
2. How dissolution courts should prevent “double counting” a spouse’s contributions through both property division and spousal support where the recipient has significant assets and capacity for self-support.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the property valuation and property division, including the allocation of the franchise’s value.
- The court modified the spousal support provisions, concluding the $60,000-per-year reimbursement-style award for 13 years was not justified given the property distribution and Ralane’s education and earning capacity.
- The court reasoned that the decree’s property division already accounted for Ralane’s contributions to the business, and the alimony award risked compensating the same contributions twice.

## Legal Principles

- Property division and spousal support must be evaluated together to reach an equitable overall result.
- Spousal support is generally grounded in need and fairness; it is not a device to provide duplicative compensation where property division has already captured the value of marital contributions.
- Reimbursement-type alimony requires circumstances showing inequity not adequately addressed through property division; otherwise, it risks an impermissible double recovery.
- In assessing spousal support, courts consider the recipient’s education, skills, employability, and ability to be self-supporting, along with the payor’s ability to pay.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court left the parties’ property distribution intact but reduced or eliminated the large reimbursement-style alimony award because the recipient spouse received substantial assets reflecting her contributions and had strong earning capacity, making additional long-term reimbursement support inequitable.


In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2004)