In re the Marriage of Sather

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0093
Filed December 17, 2025

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JENNIFER LEE SATHER
AND TIMOTHY JOHN SATHER

Upon the Petition of
JENNIFER LEE SATHER,
Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning
TIMOTHY JOHN SATHER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Shayne Mayer,

Judge.

A husband appeals the provisions of a temporary order in dissolution of

marriage proceedings. AFFIRMED.

Jamie Hunter of Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines,

for appellant.

Jessica A. Zupp of Zupp & Zupp Law Firm, P.C., Denison, and Michael L.

Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.

Sandy, J., takes no part.
2

GREER, Judge.

Amid dissolution-of-marriage proceedings that began in May 2023, after the

district court entered a second order on temporary matters, Timothy Sather (Tim)

appeals. He argues that the district court’s award to Jennifer Sather for temporary

child support, spousal support, and responsibility for family expenses was

excessive given his reported income. Each party requests an award of their

appellate attorney fees. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm and

decline to award appellate attorney fees.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Once dissolution of marriage proceedings were underway, the parties came

to a temporary agreement in September 2023.1 After a change of counsel and

because of some new circumstances, Jennifer requested a temporary hearing in

these proceedings to address temporary custody of the children, set the child

support obligation, and award spousal support, along with responsibility for

household and personal expenses. In December 2024, the court held a hearing

to address these matters. Only Jennifer and Tim testified, but the district court also

had the advantage of reviewing many exhibits including financial records and an

income analysis report prepared by a financial expert, Matthew Kelderman, a

certified public accountant, whom Jennifer had retained.

Tim owns several businesses in the Iowa Great Lakes area, including Oak

Hill Marina and Oak Hill Outdoor. Tim and Jennifer own several other businesses

1 The parties agreed that “[i]n lieu of child or spousal support, on a temporary basis,

all earnings of the parties shall be deposited into the Northwest bank account . . .
for the purposes of paying bills for the parties, and the minor children, including
uncovered medical expenses.”
3

jointly.2 Jennifer had worked for the Oak Hill Marina until these proceedings were

underway and her employment was terminated.3 She then started working for a

bank at around $43,000 per year.

Tim argued that his income was $120,000 per year. Kelderman calculated

Tim’s annual income at $447,000 and Jennifer’s at $120,000. Kelderman derived

Tim’s income from the parties’ businesses and Jennifer’s income from her bank

salary, plus investment earnings of $75,000 per year.4 Kelderman stated that in

his “professional opinion that these income amounts are a more accurate depiction

of the actual income of Tim and Jennfer as the total income does not include any

accelerated depreciation, such as bonus depreciation or Section 179 accelerated

depreciation, and attempts to exclude personal expenses from the business.”

After reviewing the Kelderman report, the district court instead averaged

Tim’s income and loss from the years 2019 to 2023 to arrive at an annual income

figure of $381,901 and utilized that number to determine his spousal-support and

child-support obligations. The district court set child support and spousal support,

and required Tim to continue paying several personal living expenses that had

traditionally been paid by the companies for Jennifer and the children’s benefit.

Tim appeals from that temporary order.

2 There were seven businesses named in the documents provided to the district

court, we do not need to list them all here.
3 Jennifer’s employment was terminated at Tim’s request in October 2024 and he

also cancelled the health insurance for her and the children.
4 Kelderman’s rationale for the $75,000 investment income to Jennifer was his

projection that Jennifer would ultimately have investment income on any cash or
other assets while Tim would have the benefit of any income or loss from the
business entities that he would likely retain.
4

II. Standard of Review.

First, we note that temporary orders related to financial support to the family

are final judgments appealable as a matter of right. See In re Marriage of

Sherwood, 995 N.W.2d 522, 524 n.1, 526 (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). We review matters

involving dissolution of marriage proceedings de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907;

In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). Our review of spousal

support awards is similarly de novo. See In re Marriage of Mann, 943 N.W.2d 15,

18 (Iowa 2020). “An appellate court should disturb the district court’s determination

of spousal support only when there has been a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage

of Sokol, 985 N.W.2d 177, 182 (Iowa 2023) (cleaned up). “We give weight to the

factual determinations made by the district court; however, their findings are not

binding upon this court.” Mann, 943 N.W.2d at 18 (cleaned up).

III. Discussion.

A. Determination of Income. Both issues raised by Tim relate to how his

income was determined and what is fair support for Jennifer and for the children.

Tim sets out the following payments he was required to make under the temporary

order for child support and spousal support as:

3,139.48 (child support)
2,600.00 (spousal support)
1,254.00 (Jennifer’s utilities)
2,385.00 (Jennifer’s house payment)
316.00 (Jennifer’s homeowner’s insurance)
1,288.00 (Jennifer’s car payment)
80.00 (Jennifer’s car insurance)
Total : $11,062.48

He asserts that these payments are too high and do not take into account his actual

income. Complicating matters, as noted above, it came to light that many of the
5

parties’ personal expenses are paid by the various companies they own. Like the

district court, we find that the challenge is to determine what the income is for

Jennifer and Tim. Much of their financial history is complicated because they have

many businesses, some interrelated, from which they derive income but also from

which many personal expenses are paid. At the temporary-support stage with

minimal testimony, where an hour-long hearing was allowed, the district court can

be at a disadvantage to assimilate a complete and accurate picture of the income

trail.

When questioned about the income reported on the tax returns, Jennifer

noted her “income stated on those returns is not accurate or representative of the

income that [she] actually ha[s] access to to provide care for [her] daughters.”

Here, because of Tim’s self-employment and the historical trend to spend from the

businesses for personal expenses, on our de novo review, we find “we are not

limited to income that is reportable to the federal government as income.” In re

Marriage of Redenius, No. 21-0593, 2022 WL 946206, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

Mar. 30, 2022) (cleaned up) (providing an extensive list of cases discussing the

difficulties establishing self-employment earnings); In re Marriage of Wiedemann,

402 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987) (“It is not uncommon for an owner to cover many

normal personal living expenses through the corporation or to over-depreciate or

undervalue inventory, all of which would decrease profits while increasing the

owner’s standard of living or the actual value of the company’s assets.”); In re

Marriage of McKamey, 522 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (finding it proper

to allocate amounts taken from a self-employed spouse’s business to his income

when those amounts were taken for personal use).
6

The district court reviewed exhibits that listed personal distributions by Tim

in previous years. Although Tim claimed to have mental-health and physical

issues, as well as cash flow problems with his businesses, the exhibit listed 2023

personal distributions totaling $456,000. Kelderman also considered the personal

expenditures made by the businesses to pay for the post-separation living

expenses for Tim and for Jennifer in arriving at his numbers. And while Tim argues

that the district court used only salary income for Jennifer, during the temporary

stage of the dissolution of marriage proceedings, she does not have access to any

investment earnings.

Even though the district court noted that “[w]ithout a forensic accounting, it

is nearly impossible for the Court to accurately determine Tim’s income with the

limited record a temporary hearing provides,” there was more data available than

simply affidavits and testimony given the detailed financial records submitted. “The

court must determine the parent’s current monthly income from the most reliable

evidence presented.” In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991).

“Where the [parties’] income is subject to substantial fluctuations, it may be

necessary to average the income over a reasonable period when determining the

current monthly income.” Id. Thus, we find the district court’s analysis of income

for the parties to be reasonable after considering the limited information presented

at the temporary hearing. Sherwood, 995 N.W.2d at 526.

B. Child Support Calculation. We find the district court’s determination

of Tim’s income was equitable along with the award for child support. The district

court correctly applied the child support guidelines using the income figures that

we also accept. See In re Marriage of Hilmo, 623 N.W.2d 809, 811 (Iowa 2001)
7

(noting we apply the child support guidelines as the correct determination for a

monthly obligation); see also Iowa Code § 598.21B(2)(c) (2023) (creating a

rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support resulting from application

of the guidelines is the correct amount). We see no reason to disturb the temporary

ruling related to the child support award.

C. Spousal Support Award. As for the spousal support of $2,600 per

month and other expenses Tim was ordered to continue to pay, the parties’ lifestyle

supported that award as both Tim and Jennifer reported monthly expenses

exceeding $14,000, although Tim did not include on his financial affidavit his condo

or vehicle payments, which one of the companies also paid. “In making temporary

orders, the court shall take into consideration the age of the applicant, the physical

and pecuniary condition of the parties, and other matters as are pertinent, which

may be shown by affidavits, as the court may direct.” Iowa Code § 598.11(1). The

district court considered the factors as required under the statute. Historically, the

parties paid many of the personal expenses from the businesses and we see no

reason to modify that practice during the temporary stage of the dissolution

proceedings. Likewise, we do not find that spousal support of $2,600 is

unreasonable given the disparity in income between Tim and Jennifer. See In re

Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 704 (Iowa 2007) (considering comparative

income of the parties to establish proper award of spousal support). In considering

the pecuniary situation of the parties, the district court noted its concern “with

providing Jennifer a reasonable way to maintain her and the children’s standard of

living pending trial and [the court] believe[d] that ordering Tim to continue to
8

provide for the upkeep of the marital expenses in lieu of large monetary monthly

alimony payment, [wa]s the best way to temporarily do this.”

Tim asserted that Jennifer had available to her $2,600 that his uncle

provided the family, but the court rejected that argument as it disagreed that the

funds were available to her. Instead, it ordered Tim to pay that same amount as

spousal support. We also note Tim’s excessive use of company monies during

the pendency of this matter and do not find his arguments about the declining

business cash flow to be persuasive.

In the end, “we will disturb the trial court’s order only when there has been

a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2015)

(cleaned up). We find that the spousal support award, plus the allocation of other

expenses traditionally paid by the businesses, is equitable. We do not disturb the

district court’s ruling on those financial awards.

D. Attorney Fees. Both parties request an award of appellate attorney

fees in this matter. Jennifer presented an affidavit related to attorney fees, but it

was not itemized by activity, so it is difficult to know what amount to award at this

level. So, we decline to award fees at this time. We assume the overall

responsibility for the parties’ attorney fees will be addressed at the time the division

of assets and debts of the parties are resolved below.

IV. Conclusion.

We find the district court’s determination of Tim’s income was reasonable

and that the awards for child support and spousal support were equitable. We

decline to award attorney fees.

AFFIRMED.