IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRADISH, 01-1709 (Iowa App. 10-16-2002)

EISENHAUER, J.

Michelle Bradish appeals and Alan Bradish cross-appeals various economic provisions of the decree that ended the parties' twenty-year marriage. Michelle contends the district court erred offsetting certain premarital property, valuing stock, and dividing the property. She also contends she is entitled to a greater award of alimony and attorney fees. Alan argues the district court erred in finding an alleged loan payment was marital property subject to division, and in awarding Michelle alimony. We review an appeal of economic provisions of a dissolution decree de novo. In re Marriage of Campbell, 623 N.W.2d 585, 586 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001).

Michelle contends the district court erred in its valuation of MidAmerica Manufacturing, Inc. stock. Alan liquidated the stock prior to the divorce, and the court accepted the sale price as the appropriate evaluation. Although our review is de novo, we will defer to the trial court when valuations are accompanied with supporting credibility findings or corroborating evidence. In re Marriage of Vieth, 591 N.W.2d 639, 640 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We find the court made extensive credibility findings and concluded nothing suggested any fraud, conspiracy or subterfuge, and accepted the sale price as the proper value. We conclude the valuation found by the trial court was well within the permissible range of evidence and will not disturb it. See In re Marriage of Versluis, 521 N.W.2d 760, 761 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).

Michelle and Alan contend the district court erred in determining certain property to be marital or premarital, loans or gifts. At trial, there was conflicting testimony given in regard to these issues. We recognize the value in listening to and observing the parties and witnesses. See Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g). Consequently, we give weight to the findings of the trial court, although they are not binding. Campbell, 623 N.W.2d at 586. We find the district court's thirty-three-page decree amply makes fact-findings, supplies credibility determinations, and cites the supporting evidence it used in its decision-making. We concur in its reasoning and find no error.

The partners in a marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Bonnette, 584 N.W.2d 713, 714 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean an equal division of property, nor does it mean a percentage division of the property. Id. In viewing the court's overall division of the property, we find it to be equitable.

The parties both find error with the district court's award of alimony to Michelle. Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We consider property division and alimony together in evaluating their individual sufficiency. In re Marriage of Tzortzoudakis, 507 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). In doing so, we find the district court's award of rehabilitative alimony to Michelle was proper.

Finally, we affirm the district court's award of trial attorney fees to Michelle. We decline to award appellate attorney fees.