In re the Marriage of Shan and Liu

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0693
Filed June 24, 2026
_______________

In re the Marriage of Xiaoyan Shan and Hong Liu
Upon the Petition of
Xiaoyan Shan,
Petitioner–Appellee,

And Concerning
Hong Liu,
Respondent–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County,
The Honorable Kevin McKeever, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Hong Liu, Iowa City, self-represented appellant.

Xiaoyan Shan, Iowa City, self-represented appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
Opinion by Ahlers, J.

1
AHLERS, Judge.

Following a trial, the district court issued a decree dissolving the
marriage of Xiaoyan Shan and Hong Liu. In the decree, the court noted that
the marital house was by far the highest-value asset the parties owned, and if
the court awarded the house to one party, the party receiving it would not
have the financial ability to make the equalization payment necessary to
equitably divide the marital net worth. As a result, the court ordered the
marital house to be sold and the proceeds equally divided.

The wife filed a post-trial motion asking the court to modify the decree
to award the house to her and require her to pay the husband $110,000 for
his share of the equity in the house. The wife pointed out that this would
enable her to keep the house at least until the parties’ fifteen-year-old child—
who was placed in the physical care of the wife—graduated high school. The
court granted the motion and ordered the wife to refinance the house and pay
the husband $110,000 for his equity in the house within ninety days. The
order also provided that if the wife was unable to comply with the modified
terms, the original decree terms would apply.

The husband appeals. He contends the district court failed to properly
consider Iowa Code section 598.21(5)(g) (2022)—which requires the court
to consider the desirability of awarding the family home to the party having
physical care of the child (i.e., the wife)—when it ordered the immediate sale
of the house. The husband’s brief then goes on to state that, if the court
defers sale of the house, he “is willing to commit” to various terms of a
deferred payment arrangement. The wife filed a “notice of waiver of
appellee’s brief and statement” in which she essentially makes a counteroffer
to the offer made by the husband in his brief.

2
We review dissolution-of-marriage appeals de novo. In re Marriage of
Miller, 966 N.W.2d 630, 635 (Iowa 2021). With de novo review, we examine
the entire record and adjudicate property division issues anew. In re Marriage
of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013). However, we disturb the
district court’s ruling only when it fails to do equity. Id.

We reject the husband’s challenge. In a dissolution case, the property
must be equitably divided. Id. at 678. This requires us to look at all the
factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(5), not just the factor in
section 598.21(5)(g) highlighted by the husband. See id. In essence, the
property division question is a puzzle, and the desirability of awarding the
house to the wife as the party with physical care of the minor child is just one
piece of that puzzle. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the other pieces
of the puzzle. That is because, though the record reveals that the trial
occurred over the course of three days, the husband provided us only with
the transcript of one witness—a witness who prepared a comparative market
analysis on the house. Without the entire transcript, we have no way of
assessing the statutory factors necessary to address the husband’s challenge
to the property division. It was the husband’s obligation, as the appellant,
“to ensure that the transcripts of any district court proceeding needed for
resolution of the appeal are included in the record.” See In re Marriage of
Sprague, 33 N.W.3d 589, 593 (Iowa 2026) (quoting Iowa R. App. P. 6.803(1)).
Because the husband failed to fulfil that obligation, we do not have the record
we need to resolve his challenge, and the consequence for that failure is to
affirm. See id. at 594.

Before concluding, we again note that the parties’ appellate filings
essentially involve making offers and counteroffers as to what they would like
to see happen with the marital house. The parties, as unmarried people, are

3
free to enter any lawful agreement that they’d like. But we will not weigh in
on those negotiations, as we serve as an appellate court, not as mediators of
disputes.

AFFIRMED.

4