The Iowa Court of Appeals recently ruled on the divorce case of Amanda Lynn Feeler and Travis Michael Feeler, affecting their financial obligations following their separation. The court's decision includes modifications to spousal support and child support calculations, which will impact the couple's future financial arrangements and their children's welfare.
Amanda Feeler, the petitioner in this case, challenged several aspects of the divorce decree issued by the Iowa District Court for Clinton County. The court had previously ordered Travis to pay $2,133.73 per month in child support and $1,000 per month in transitional spousal support for three years. Amanda argued that the court's calculations were flawed, particularly regarding her imputed income from their house-flipping business.
The couple married in 2002 and has eight children, six of whom were minors at the time of the divorce. Amanda was primarily responsible for the children's care and education, while Travis worked as the main breadwinner, earning approximately $133,666 annually. Amanda filed for divorce in 2024, leading to a trial in May 2025, where the court made various rulings regarding child support, spousal support, and property division.
During the divorce proceedings, the court found it challenging to determine Amanda's income due to the nature of their house-flipping business. The court ultimately imputed an annual income of $62,400 to Amanda based on her skills and past earnings. Amanda contested this decision, arguing that the house-flipping venture was a joint effort and that the income should not be attributed solely to her.
The court ruled that the imputation of income was reasonable, stating, "The court disbelieved Amanda’s claim that she had no income and appropriately assigned her an annual income of $62,400 based on past proceeds from flipping houses." The court affirmed the child support calculations but acknowledged Amanda's concerns regarding the spousal support duration.
In its ruling, the court determined that Amanda should receive traditional spousal support rather than transitional support. The court noted, "Generally speaking, marriages lasting twenty or more years commonly cross the durational threshold and merit serious consideration for traditional spousal support." The court modified the spousal support duration from three years to a more extended period, ordering Travis to pay Amanda $1,000 per month until certain conditions occur, such as his retirement or her remarriage.
Additionally, the court addressed Amanda's obligation to repay $46,000 that she withdrew from their children's savings accounts. Amanda argued that the court's directive did not consider her use of those funds for the children's immediate needs. However, the court upheld the repayment order, emphasizing that the children's accounts were not marital property.
The court also reviewed the division of marital property. Amanda claimed the division was inequitable, but the court found that she did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim. The court concluded that the property division was appropriate based on the circumstances.
This ruling has significant implications for both Amanda and Travis, particularly regarding their financial responsibilities and the well-being of their children. The court's decision to modify the spousal support duration reflects the long-term nature of their marriage and Amanda's role as the primary caregiver.
Looking ahead, the ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving long-term marriages and the division of financial responsibilities. The court's emphasis on traditional spousal support in lengthy marriages could influence future decisions in Iowa regarding spousal support calculations.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing regarding whether either party intends to seek further review of this decision. However, the court's ruling in this case is now final unless appealed to a higher court.