In re the Marriage of Michelle L. Rasmussen and Scott M. Rasussen

Harlan, Iowa family law lawyers represented the Petitioner and Respondent in a divorce.



In February 2023, Michelle petitioned for divorce from Scott. She used some of the money left over from her 401(k) withdrawal to retain an attorney and establish a new residence for herself. By the dissolution trial in December, Michelle only had $10,000 left in a savings account from the 401(k) money. When asked at trial where the rest of it went, Michelle admitted: "Honestly, it's frivolous." Scott testified that he did not know about much of this until the trial, stating he was "floored" by the numbers that he was hearing. He asked the court to deny Michelle's request for a payment to equalize their mostly agreed-upon property division because she dissipated marital assets.



The district court granted Scott's request, to an extent. On Michelle's side of the property division ledger, the court included the total estimated value of her 401(k) account before its liquidation-$80,000, plus $3220 from her current 401(k). See In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 106 n.6 (Iowa 2007) ("Typically, a dissipated asset is included in the marital estate and awarded to the spouse who wasted the asset."). But it subtracted the $10,000 that Michelle still had in a savings account from that amount, plus the credit card debt of $31,685.50 that she paid off with those funds. Although the court found that "[n]o one disputes that paying off the Jeep was erasing a marital debt," it did not subtract that amount from the 401(k) balance assigned to Michelle.



* * *



Legal issue What is the appropriate cash equalization payment in a divorce proceeding considering the alleged dissipation of assets and valuation of marital property?

Headnote



FAMILY LAW. PROPERTY DIVISION IN DIVORCE. The case involves former spouses appealing and cross-appealing the district court's property division in the dissolution of their marriage, particularly concerning the amount of a cash equalization payment due to alleged dissipation of assets and disputes over asset valuation.



FAMILY LAW. DISSIPATION OF MARITAL ASSETS. The court evaluated whether the dissipation doctrine applied to Michelle's financial conduct, concluding it did not apply to credit card debts accumulated during the marriage that preceded the couple's separation, thereby affecting the property division.



FAMILY LAW. ASSET VALUATION AND DIVISION. Issues concerning the valuation and division of specific assets, such as an empty lot at Lake Panorama and a service truck used in a business, were critical in adjusting net property awards and the resulting equalization payment.



Key Phrases Cash equalization payment. Dissipation of assets. Division of assets. Property division. Dissolution of marriage.

Affirmed