IN RE MARRIAGE OF BIETH

MAHAN, P.J.

Ted Bieth appeals, and Joyce Bieth cross-appeals, from the provisions of their dissolution decree. Ted contends the district court erred in awarding traditional alimony to Joyce. On cross-appeal, Joyce disputes the amount of alimony awarded. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Ted and Joyce were married on July 8, 1972. Ted, who earned a bachelor's degree, was the primary wage earner during the parties' thirty-one-year marriage. He has been employed for twenty-one years as an art instructor, transportation director, and part-time referee at Newman Catholic High School. Over the years, his annual income has increased from $8,000 to $26,439. Joyce has no post-secondary education other than her attendance at a one-year fashion merchandising program. She has worked at various part-time jobs throughout the marriage, and the most she earned in one year was approximately $12,000.

In 1985 Ted and Joyce adopted twin daughters, Annie and Molly. They agreed Joyce would stay at home to raise the children until they were old enough to attend school. Joyce would then go back to working part-time.

Ted filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on April 22, 2003. The district court entered a decree of dissolution on November 4, 2003. The court awarded Joyce $400 per month in traditional alimony until she remarried, or until Ted either retired or reached the age of sixty-five. Ted appeals and Joyce cross-appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

We review dissolution decrees de novo. In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Iowa 1999). We review the entire record and adjudicate rights anew on issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Smith, 573 N.W.2d 924, 926 (Iowa 1998). While we give weight to the factual findings of the district court, especially to credibility determinations, they do not bind us. Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d at 51. Prior cases have little precedential value, and we must base our decision primarily on the particular circumstances of the parties presently before us. In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983).

III. Alimony.

Ted contends the district court erred in awarding traditional alimony to Joyce. In the alternative, he argues the alimony award should be reduced in amount or length of time, or both. We disagree.

Following a marriage of long duration, alimony awards are appropriate. In re Marriage of Bell, 576 N.W.2d 618, 622 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). Alimony has typically taken the place of support that would have been provided had the marriage continued. In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 63 (Iowa 1989). Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Eastman, 538 N.W.2d 874, 876 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). In determining whether an alimony award is appropriate, the court considers the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (2003). In re Marriage of Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d 309, 319 (Iowa 1996).

The record supports an award of traditional alimony. Ted and Joyce were married for thirty-one years; a marriage typical of those where a traditional alimony award is appropriate. Ted has earned a college degree, whereas Joyce has no post-secondary education, except for a one-year program. Ted earned a significant portion of the family's income. Joyce has only worked part-time jobs throughout the marriage. Upon agreement of both parties, she stayed at home to raise their twin daughters until they were old enough to attend school. We affirm the district court on the award of traditional alimony.

Joyce argues she is entitled to $700 per month in alimony instead of the $400 per month ordered by the district court. We disagree. Joyce, as a dependent spouse, is entitled to support at a level that as closely as possible resembles the standard of living that existed during the marriage. In re Marriage of Stark, 542 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). However, the amount of the award is constrained by Ted's ability to meet the obligation without destroying his own right to enjoy a comparable standard of living. Id. In its order the district court stated:

The need of the obligee, however, must be balanced against the ability of the obligor to pay. Here, we are encountered with a situation all too common when one household now splits into two, especially with the fairly meager income earned by Ted which appeared sufficient to support the parties under their admittedly frugal lifestyle. Both parties also find themselves at the stage in life when employment prospects are dwindling. Ted, however, has the ability to earn extra income during the summer months when not actively employed by Newman. . . . Even with such extra income which would be available to Ted, the court believes Joyce's request for $700 per month is excessive.

We conclude an award of $400 per month is equitable, and affirm the district court on this issue.