## Facts

- Jay E. Stewart and Joan Kaye Wilson (formerly Stewart) married in 1977 and later sought dissolution.
- At marriage, Joan had a college degree and worked in sales; Jay was about 1½ years from completing a veterinary medicine degree.
- During Jay’s schooling, Jay’s parents paid his school expenses and provided him $100 per month, while Joan’s income covered the remaining household expenses.
- The parties bought a home during the marriage using a $5,500 loan or gift from Joan’s parents; title was placed in Joan’s name.
- Jay acquired a one-half interest in a veterinary practice, financed by a non-interest-bearing loan from his parents.
- By 1981, the parties’ reported net incomes were similar (Joan about $21,549; Jay about $25,310).
- Jay gave Joan a dog as a Christmas gift, but Jay spent substantial time with the dog and frequently kept it at his veterinary practice.
- The district court entered a dissolution decree dividing property, denying Joan alimony, and awarding the dog to Jay.
- Joan appealed the property division, the denial of alimony, and the award of the dog.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s property division was equitable, including whether Joan’s support during Jay’s professional education required a greater award to her.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying alimony.
3. Whether the district court erred by awarding the dog to Jay as part of the property distribution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution decree in full after de novo review.
- The property division was equitable, including the district court’s treatment of gifted stock to Jay and its near-equal allocation of remaining assets and liabilities.
- The denial of alimony was upheld given the marriage length, the parties’ relative youth and education, and their comparable earning capacities at dissolution.
- The award of the dog to Jay was affirmed, treating the dog as personal property allocated within the overall equitable distribution.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa dissolution property division is governed by equity under the circumstances, not a mechanical requirement of equal division.
- A spouse’s contributions to the other spouse’s education and earning capacity are relevant to equitable distribution and support, but do not create an automatic right to reimbursement, an unequal property award, or alimony.
- Alimony determinations are discretionary and depend on factors including marriage length, the parties’ earning capacities, and the property distribution.
- Pets are treated as personal property in dissolution proceedings and are allocated as part of property division rather than through custody or visitation concepts.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a nearly equal property distribution, declined to impose reimbursement or support based on one spouse’s educational assistance where both parties had comparable earning capacity, and confirmed that a pet may be awarded to one spouse as personal property within an equitable dissolution decree.


In re Marriage of Stewart, 356 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984)