In re Marriage of Baughn and Pack

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0962
Filed December 18, 2024

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEREMY BAUGHN
AND KRISTI PACK

Upon the Petition of
JEREMY BAUGHN,
Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning
KRISTI PACK,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt,

Judge.

A wife appeals the award of reimbursement spousal support to her husband

in the decree dissolving their marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

John J. Wood of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, P.C.,

Waterloo, for appellant.

Todd P. Prichard and Caifang Deng of Walk, Prichard, Baresel & Murphy,

PC, Charles City, for appellee.

Considered by Badding, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.
2

BADDING, Presiding Judge.

Kristi Pack spent most of her short marriage to Jeremy Baughn pursuing a

residency in veterinarian radiology. About a year after she completed the

residency, the parties separated. In its decree dissolving the marriage, the district

court awarded Jeremy $75,000 in reimbursement spousal support. Kristi appeals,

claiming that Jeremy was not entitled to reimbursement spousal support because

he did not make any economic sacrifices during the marriage that directly

enhanced her future earning capacity. We agree and modify the dissolution

decree to eliminate that award.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

When Jeremy and Kristi first met in 2014, she was a major in the Air Force

and working as a public health officer in Florida. Jeremy had just retired from the

Army after more than twenty years of service. He worked in the same office as

Kristi as an advocate for wounded soldiers. On top of his gross yearly salary of

$70,000, Jeremy received $1800 per month from the military in retirement pay and

$2100 in disability pay because of a right-arm injury.

In November, Kristi received a notice of separation from the military. Kristi

had joined the Air Force in 2003, after she obtained a doctorate in veterinarian

medicine and completed a large animal internship in Canada. Although she used

her veterinarian degree as a public health officer, Kristi had not done any clinical

work during her career with the military. She discussed her options with Jeremy

and decided to pursue a residency in veterinary radiology. Kristi’s sister was

tenured faculty at the veterinary school in Canada where Kristi had completed her

internship. So the couple decided that Kristi would complete her residency there.
3

With that plan in place, Jeremy and Kristi married in May 2015. Jeremy was

thirty-nine years old, and Kristi was forty-two. Two months after their marriage,

Kristi moved to Canada to start her residency program. Jeremy followed in

January 2016 after he quit his job and sold his premarital home in Florida. Kristi’s

tuition for the residency program was covered by the military, which also provided

her with a monthly housing allowance and a book stipend. And she was paid about

$1500 per month for her work as a resident. Jeremy did not work while the couple

was in Canada. Instead, he applied for and was granted social security disability

benefits of $1800 per month. Around the same time, the Veterans’ Administration

reevaluated Jeremy’s disability rating and determined he was one hundred percent

disabled, which resulted in increased military disability pay.

Kristi’s move to Canada sparked a protracted custody battle with her ex-

husband in Florida. They shared care of their three children, who Kristi wanted to

live with her in Canada. Kristi financed the litigation, and trips to see the children,

with savings that she accumulated before the marriage, including about $65,000

or $70,000 in separation pay from the military, an $80,000 inheritance, a Roth IRA,

and a Thrift Savings Plan.

Because of some personnel issues with the veterinary school in Canada,

Kristi transferred to a residency program in Missouri in May 2016. The couple

rented a house there, which Kristi helped pay for with her housing allowance from

the military and the money she earned as a resident. Those earnings increased

to between $1800 to $2000 per month as Kristi advanced in her residency. Jeremy

obtained a part-time job at a sporting goods store, where he grossed about

$24,000 per year. He also spent his time hunting and fishing, going on trips at
4

least every month, according to Kristi. Some of those trips were out of state—in

Iowa, Virginia, and New York. Jeremy also made some trips to Florida to see his

daughter from a previous relationship, while Kristi continued her custody battle with

her ex-husband. Kristi testified that she financed many of Jeremy’s trips, although

he disputed that.

Kristi finished her residency in 2019, and the couple moved to Florida to be

closer to their children. They bought a house in July for $539,900, with a $25,000

down payment. Kristi said that she made the down payment by dipping into her

Roth IRA, Thrift Savings Plan, and money that she set aside for her children.

Thinking this would be their “forever home,” Kristi started renovating it, to the tune

of roughly $100,000. She financed the renovation by again drawing from her Roth

IRA and Thrift Savings Plan, along with credit cards and a personal loan through

Discover. Jeremy said that he wasn’t aware of all the renovations, but Kristi

disagreed, testifying they made those decisions together.

Once they were in Florida, Kristi started working for a company her sister

had started that provided teleradiology veterinarian services. Jeremy, who was

not working, began going on hunting trips to Iowa through a veterans’ hunting

organization. In February 2020, he decided to stay in Iowa. Jeremy transferred

the bills for the Florida house into Kristi’s name and petitioned for divorce in April

2021. He bought a house in Iowa for $295,000 that he was fixing up “and turning

it into, basically, a retreat for the veterans when they come to hunt.” Meanwhile,

Kristi maintained the home in Florida until it sold for $590,000. She moved to

Colorado, where she continued to work for her sister’s company as a teleradiology

veterinarian. She was earning $135,550 at the time of trial and living in her sister’s
5

home. Jeremy was unemployed and intended to remain that way, preferring to

instead spend his time hunting and volunteering for different veterans’ hunting

organizations. His monthly benefits had increased to about $2000 in military

retirement pay, $4000 in military disability pay, and $2100 in social security

disability, for a gross annual total of $97,200—about half of which was nontaxable

because of the military disability pay.

At the dissolution trial in March 2023, Jeremy asked for reimbursement

spousal support “for his sacrifice and his support of [Kristi’s] education.” He also

asked for an offset against the parties’ credit card debt—which reached $125,000

during the marriage—based on his contributions to the household. Jeremy

testified that those contributions included payments he made for the couple’s

homes, utilities, and vehicle insurance, as well as payments for his own vehicle,

cell phone, and child support obligation. Kristi testified they both used the credit

cards during the marriage, pointing out that before the marriage, she had no credit

card debt. Since their separation, Kristi has paid $55,757 on the joint credit card

debt. Jeremy has paid nothing.

In its dissolution decree, the district court found Kristi was credible, noting

she was “very detailed and precise in her testimony” and “had a good grasp of

details and timeframes” without speaking in generalities. Based on Kristi’s

testimony, the court determined that Jeremy’s share of the parties’ marital debt

was $84,137, which included half of what Kristi had already paid on the credit card

debt, half of the remaining credit card debt, and half of what the couple borrowed

from Kristi’s minor children’s accounts. The court rejected Jeremy’s request for a

credit against that debt for his contributions to the household because “these were
6

debts and expenses which occurred during the marriage” that were also “offset

somewhat, if not entirely, by the funds put into the Florida home remodeling by

[Kristi].” Yet the court concluded Jeremy was entitled to $75,000 in reimbursement

spousal support from Kristi because the “advanced training she received during

the marriage has resulted in increased income for her, and Jeremy did help

contribute so the advanced education could happen.” The court offset that amount

from what Jeremy owed to Kristi for his share of the marital debt, which left Jeremy

owing Kristi a balance of $9137.

Kristi appeals, claiming the court erred in awarding Jeremy reimbursement

spousal support. She asks that we modify the dissolution decree by eliminating

that award and ordering Jeremy to make an equalization payment of $84,137.

Jeremy counters that the court “struck an equitable decision” in awarding him

reimbursement support “and counting that against [his] share of the marital debt.”

II. Standard of Review

We review spousal support awards de novo. In re Marriage of Pazhoor,

971 N.W.2d 530, 537 (Iowa 2022). Although our review is de novo, we “give the

district court considerable latitude, and will only disturb the award when there has

been a failure to do equity.” Id. (cleaned up).

III. Analysis

A decision about whether to award spousal support “is a matter of discretion

and not a matter of right.” Id. (citation omitted). It depends on the “particular facts

and circumstances of each case,” as shaped by the criteria listed in Iowa Code

section 598.21A(1) (2021). Id. “In applying these statutory criteria, our precedents

have recognized four forms of spousal support deemed equitable: traditional,
7

reimbursement, rehabilitative, and transitional.” In re Marriage of Sokol, 985

N.W.2d 177, 185 (Iowa 2023). The only category at issue here is reimbursement.

Reimbursement spousal support “is predicated upon economic sacrifices

made by one spouse during the marriage that directly enhance the future earning

capacity of the other.” Pazhoor, 971 N.W.2d at 544 (quoting In re Marriage of

Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Iowa 1989)); see also Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(e).

This type of spousal support “is designed to give the ‘supporting’ spouse a stake

in the ‘student’ spouse’s future earning capacity, in exchange for recognizable

contributions to the source of that income—the student’s advanced education.”

Francis, 442 N.W.2d at 63. An award of reimbursement support is generally

appropriate in “marriages of short duration which are devoted almost entirely to the

educational advancement of one spouse and yield the accumulation of few

tangible assets.” Id. at 62; see also Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(a), (c). Jeremy

seizes on this last consideration in arguing this “case hits the marks for the award

of reimbursement [spousal support] quite squarely.” We disagree.

While this was a short marriage with few assets, Kristi correctly points out

that Jeremy did not make any economic sacrifices in furtherance of her advanced

degree. Although the district court found that Jeremy made sacrifices for Kristi’s

education by moving to “Canada and Missouri [with] related travel and moving

expenses,” the record shows the military paid for the couple’s move to Canada,

and Kristi paid for their move to Missouri, as well as for many of their expenses in

traveling to see their children. True, Jeremy quit his job as a veterans’ advocate

before moving to Canada for the first year of Kristi’s residency program. But he

was already retired from the military by then. And Jeremy never returned to work
8

full-time. See In re Marriage of Coffman, No. 12-1191, 2013 WL 99331, at *3 (Iowa

Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2013) (rejecting claim for reimbursement support where wife

“presented no evidence of her likely income or professional status if she had not

made the moves”). Instead, he applied for social security disability and, aside from

his part-time job in Missouri, spent his time hunting, fishing, and helping other

veterans. Cf. In re Marriage of Singer, No. 02-1770, 2003 WL 22807034, at *3

(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2003) (finding spouse entitled to reimbursement support

“for her economic sacrifices in the form of lost tenure in her teaching career, lost

educational opportunities, and lost retirement benefits, all of which directly

enhanced [her spouse’s] future earning capacity”); In re Marriage of Showers,

No. 99-1912, 2000 WL 1588016, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2000) (concluding

reimbursement support was appropriate for a wife who sacrificed “the opportunity

to have stable, long-term employment which would provide her with such benefits

as insurance, retirement[,] and seniority”); accord In re Marriage of Horstmann,

263 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Iowa 1978) (awarding reimbursement support where a wife

“sacrificed her education to have the couple’s child and to support the family” while

[the husband] went to school”).

As for Jeremy’s economic contributions to Kristi’s advanced degree, while

both parties agree that he “did not directly finance or make economic contribution

to [her] education expenses,” Jeremy contends that he did contribute to the parties’

household with his income. Cf. Francis, 442 N.W.2d at 66 (noting “courts in Iowa

are not confined to reimbursing supporting spouses solely for the expense of the

advanced degree itself”). He testified: “My support was in the means of paying for

the rent and utilities and vehicle payment, my vehicle payment, my child support
9

and all that stuff and taking care of the household . . . .” But Kristi was contributing

to those expenses too. See In re Marriage of Lalone, 469 N.W.2d 695, 697 (Iowa

1991) (denying claim for reimbursement support where both spouses “contributed

to the success of the family unit”). She received a housing allowance from the

military which, in her final year of residency, was $1149 per month, plus her

resident salary of $1800 to $2000 per month. Kristi testified that she transferred

$1000 to Jeremy every month and paid other bills from her savings. While some

of Kristi’s assets went towards what Jeremy describes as her “costly custody

dispute,” that is not a relevant consideration in determining whether an award of

reimbursement support is appropriate. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Gutcher,

No. 17-0593, 2018 WL 5292082, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2018) (noting

reimbursement support “cannot be applied so broadly” as to compensate a spouse

for financial contributions to the marriage outside the professional degree context).

In the end, the goal in awarding spousal support is to do equity. See In re

Marriage of Mills, 983 N.W.2d 61, 71 (Iowa 2022). Under the facts of this case,

we find the court’s award of reimbursement spousal support fails to do equity

between these parties. We accordingly modify the decree to remove that award

and its offset against Jeremy’s share of the marital debt. Our modification leaves

Jeremy owing Kristi $84,137, which we order him to pay within one year after

procedendo issues or judgment will enter against him for that amount, with interest

at the statutory rate. The costs of this appeal are assessed against Jeremy.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.