 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Edwards6/19/2002
imony to the contrary, Leo Worrell testified there was little, if any, increase in the home's value during the marriage. We believe the district court carefully considered all factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) in declining to award her any share of the marital properties. We therefore affirm the district court.
C. Pension Benefits.
Christine argues the district court's division of Daniel's pension benefits was inequitable. She contends Daniel accrued a $12,000 increase in pension benefits during their marriage. We agree with the trial court's determination that Daniel accrued $7,910.33 in benefits from the Macomb police department, and $272.59 from Pleasant Hill, for a total of $8,182.92 during their three-year marriage. The district court awarded Christine a lump sum payment of $4,091.17, representing one-half of the marital increase. Where the district court's valuation of property is within the permissible range of the evidence, we will not disturb it on appeal. In re Marriage of Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d 640, 643 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). We affirm on this ground.
IV. Attorney Fees.
Christine requests an award of appellate attorney fees. An award of appellate attorney fees is not a matter of right, but within the district court's sound discretion and the parties' financial positions. In re Marriage of Wendell, 581 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). We look to 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 trial court's decision on appeal. Hoffman, 493 N.W.2d at 90. We decline to award Christine appellate attorney fees.
We therefore affirm the district court's decree.
AFFIRMED.
|