 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Mobberley8/17/2005
Colleen-Ann Roux Mobberley appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Tivis Mobberley. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Colleen-Ann Roux Mobberley appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Tivis Mobberley. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Colleen and Tivis were married on November 3, 1980. Two children were born to the parties, both of whom at the time of trial were older than eighteen and enrolled in college. Tivis, age fifty-eight at the time of trial, was employed in the computer systems and software field throughout the marriage. Colleen, a native of South Africa, worked in the secretarial field both in her native country and in the United States after marrying Tivis. However, she remained out of the work force after the birth of their first child in 1983 and was fifty-two years old at the time of trial. The district court found both parties suffer from various health concerns: Tivis has some permanent disability related to a back injury, while Colleen has a thyroid condition and suffers from depression.
The district court dissolved the parties' marriage and divided their property. The court ordered Tivis to pay Colleen $850 per month in spousal support, payable until January of 2011, at which time his obligation shall be reduced to $200 per month, continuing until the death of either party or until Colleen remarries. Colleen appeals, arguing generally that the property division ordered by the district court is inequitable, and specifically contending the court failed to adequately consider Tivis's alleged "legal and financial abuse" as a factor in the division of the property.
II. Scope of Review
Our review in dissolution cases is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 253 (Iowa 1996). Nonetheless, "we accord the trial court considerable latitude in making this determination and will disturb the ruling only when there has been a failure to do equity." In re Marriage of Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d 309, 319 (Iowa 1996).
III. Claims on Appeal
We first note our conclusion that a number of issues raised in Colleen's brief are not preserved for our review, are waived for failure to cite authority, or are otherwise not properly before this court. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(c) ("Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue."); State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 233 (Iowa 2002) (noting we will only review an issue raised on appeal if it was presented to and ruled on by the district court). In addition, we note that Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.14(1)(e) requires that each division of a party's brief begin with a discussion of the applicable scope of review and an identification of how error was preserved, with citation to the place in the record where the issue was raised and decided. Colleen's brief clearly fails to comply with this rule. Colleen's "Motion to Correct Amended Reply Brief" is denied.
A. Property Distribution
Our review of this matter has been greatly hindered by the fact that a transcript of the trial testimony was not prepared. Appellant has a duty to provide a record that affirmatively discloses the alleged error by the district court. See In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134, 135 (Iowa 2005). We are unable, after carefully reviewing the limited record provided and the briefs of the parties, to conclude the district court's division of the parties' assets and debts is inequitable. Accordingly, we must uphold the district court's findings and conclusions. Id. at 136.
B. Consi
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|