Iowa is a No-Fault State

A long time ago, Iowa's divorce statutes provided that the parties had a limited amount of reasons that they could cite to get a divorce, which mostly involved blaming one party or the other (such as infidelity, criminal acts, mental health issues). But that all changed in 1970. The Legislature passed the modern permutation of the statute, which cited only a breakdown of the marriage as a reason to dissolve the marriage. And that changed a lot of things.


In re the Marriage of Williams, 199 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa 1972) considered no-fault as applied to division of assets. Prior to the new laws, the Court considered fault as a part of property and support. But the new statute called this into question. In this case, the Court decided for the first time, " not only the 'guilty party' concept must be eliminated but evidence of the conduct of the parties insofar as it tends to place fault for the marriage breakdown on either spouse must also be rejected as a factor in awarding property settlement or an allowance of alimony or support money." Id. at 345. That is, fault had no place in the property division or support allocation of a dissolution of marriage. It did not matter why a marriage fell apart; the Court just aimed to divide equitably the assets and debts and move on. 


The cases continue to outline what limiting  fault in dissolutions of marriage means. For instance, a party who is abused by another party is not entitled to a greater share of property rights or alimony because of the abuse. In re Marriage of Goodwin, 606 N.W.2d 315 (Iowa 2000). One party's expenditures on gambling were not to be considered in awarding alimony, as this also introduced fault into the equation. In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2005). 


An interesting issue arising from the no-fault dissolution law was discussed in the In re Marriage of Cooper case, 769 N.W.2d 582 (Iowa 2009). The husband had been unfaithful to his wife, but they attempted to stay married, and as a product thereof, signed a contract outlining the division of assets should the marriage ultimately fail. The contract specifically mentioned and outlined husband's infidelity. 


The Court found that agreement to be void. "We do not wish to create a bargaining environment where sexual infidelity or harmonious relationships are key variables." The Court sought to limit its engagement in he-said-she-said arguments and intense probing of a marital relationship. The entire goal of no-fault divorce was to limit acrimonious proceedings, which would be encouraged by this sort of agreement. And allowing the parties to contract to inject fault back into the relationship would be to allow people to end-run the legal system. 


The exception to the no-fault rule is usually when children are involved. It does not matter if one party cheated on the other, unless it has somehow affected the child(ren) or the parenting ability. With this giant caveat, however, it really should not matter why the marriage fell apart.