In Re The Marriage Pazhoor

971 N.W.2d 530 (Iowa 2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Suraj (M) and Hancy (F) were married in India in 2002. F had graduated from medical school in India and was completing her internship. She is a registered physician in India. M had graduated from medical school in Russia and completed his internship in India. He was working and volunteering in the medical field in India when they married. After about a year of living with M's parents in India, the couple relocated to Naperville, Illinois, to live with F's parents. The couple later moved to their own residence. F worked in a bookstore and M worked day shifts at a college library and night shifts at a retailer. M and F began studying to become licensed physicians in the United States. M obtained his medical license. M had ultimately passed the third part and entered residency. F never passed the third part. Their daughter was born in 2008. F was preparing for her second attempt at the third part of the exam when she learned her father had been diagnosed with cancer. F never retook the exam. In 2012, after M completed a three-year residency program the couple agreed M would accept a hospitalist position in Wisconsin and F would care for their children and home. Their son was born in 2013. M was promoted that year to serve as a director of a hospitalist fellowship program, which added to his responsibilities without an increase in his pay. In 2016, M accepted a position as a hospitalist and medical director. M focused on his career. F ran the household, facilitated their moves, managed their finances, provided childcare, and focused on the children's development, education, medical care, and extracurricular activities. From 2008 to 2017, F earned no income. In 2017, she began volunteering as a religious education teacher on Wednesday and Sunday nights during the school year. M's income in 2018 was $500,742. M petitioned for divorce on August 31, 2018. F began earning $12 an hour, or $918 annually, as a religious education teacher (instead of volunteering). F began working part-time, up to twenty hours a week, as a barista at a local coffee shop for $8 an hour, or $8,320 annually. F interviewed for a patient advocacy position at a local hospital. F earns passive income from a 10% interest in two commercial real estate holding companies ($13,387 average annual income over three years) and rental income from the Naperville condo ($490 annual net income). Her total annual income from these sources is $23,115. M requested the court award $5,000 monthly for five years in spousal support, totaling $300,000. F sought $12,000 monthly in traditional spousal support. M was age forty-three at trial and was on track to earn $415,152 in 2019. He testified that after paying 46.5% of his income in taxes, his after-tax income is approximately $232,500 annually or $19,375 a month. F was age forty at trial. Her father died ten years earlier but her mother still lived in Illinois. Because too much time had passed, F testified she is interested in earning a master's degree in public health, which would take two to three years to complete if she attended school full-time, assuming her credits from medical school transferred. If her credits do not transfer, she would need to complete additional undergraduate coursework. F estimated she will earn up to $80,000 a year after she earns her master's. M claims F could immediately return to a nonclinical role earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year. His assertions were not supported by expert testimony or other evidence. F estimated her monthly expenses to be $10,244, which included tuition for a master's program. M estimates his monthly expenses to be at least $13,118, including allocations for vacations, clothing, and other incidentals, but not including contributions to his savings. M advocated for a transitional award. The court dissolved the seventeen-year marriage. The court ordered shared custody and physical care of their children and divided their property. Each was awarded marital property valued at $337,754, and F was able to retain premarital assets totaling $136,565. F retained the Naperville condo, her vehicle, some bank accounts, and a portion of the marital debt as well as her premarital investment accounts and jewelry. The court ordered M to pay $143,977 as an equalization payment from the property division, $643 a month in child support, and $7,500 monthly in spousal support for five years totaling $450,000. The court imputed income of $40,000 to F, which included $24,960 in estimated wages and her passive business income, rental income, and child support. F argued the spousal support award was inequitable and that the court erred when it imputed a $40,000 income. The court denied her motion, and F appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court's decision to impute income to F, assigned Hancy an income of $23,115, and increased the spousal support awarded to $9,000 monthly for seven years, $8,000 monthly for another three years, and $7,000 monthly for two more years, totaling $1,212,000. M appealed.