The Iowa Supreme Court delivered a split decision Thursday in a contentious divorce case involving Jason C. Owen and Alison A. Brinker, affirming parts of a Court of Appeals ruling while vacating others in a dispute over spousal support following the dissolution of a marriage involving significant business assets.
In *In re the Marriage of Jason C. Owen and Alison A. Brinker* (Iowa 2025), the court addressed the complex financial arrangements that arise when high-income couples divorce after building successful businesses together. The case originated in the Iowa District Court for Audubon County before proceeding through the appellate system.
Justice Oxley, writing for the court, acknowledged the fundamental economic reality facing divorced couples: "Two households are more expensive to maintain than one. And when couples divorce, there is often not enough income between the parties to keep them both at their predivorce lifestyles."
The case involved what the court characterized as a "not-uncommon situation where a couple divorces after building a successful business." According to the opinion, Jason Owen retained ownership of the couple's business following the trial court proceedings, while Alison Brinker received a large cash equalization payment essentially buying out her half of the business interest.
The Iowa Supreme Court's analysis focused on when traditional spousal support is appropriate in high-asset divorces. The court explained that while spousal support traditionally "helps fill that gap following a long marriage and disparate earning capacities between the former spouses," different considerations apply in divorces involving "high-income, high-asset couples."
"When financially successful parties divorce, and their property division enables the bought-out spouse to earn sufficient income to maintain their predivorce lifestyle, an award of traditional spousal support is unneeded," the court wrote. "In such cases, it is often best to let the parties make a clean break and go their separate ways."
The litigation history reveals both parties sought review of the Iowa Court of Appeals' modification of their original dissolution decree. The district court case was presided over by Judge Craig M. Dreismeier in Audubon County. The appeals court had modified aspects of the original trial court ruling, prompting both Owen and Brinker to seek further review from the state's highest court.
The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling was unanimous among participating justices, with Justice Oxley delivering the opinion that all participating justices joined. Chief Justice Christensen took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Alison Brinker, represented by Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C. in West Des Moines, served as the appellant in the supreme court proceedings. Jason Owen was represented by Jessica A. Zupp of Zupp and Zupp Law Firm, P.C. in Denison, along with Julie G. Mayhall of Julie Greteman Mayhall Attorney at Law PLC in Carroll.
The case was submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court on Nov. 13, 2025, and the opinion was filed on Dec. 12, 2025. The court's decision to affirm parts of the appeals court ruling while vacating others suggests the justices found merit in some aspects of the intermediate court's analysis while disagreeing with other portions.
The ruling provides important guidance for Iowa family courts handling similar high-asset divorce cases. The court's emphasis on enabling "clean breaks" when property divisions provide sufficient income for both parties reflects a practical approach to spousal support determinations in cases involving substantial business interests.
The decision also highlights the evolving nature of spousal support law as it applies to modern marriages where both parties may have contributed to building valuable business enterprises. Traditional spousal support frameworks, designed primarily for cases involving disparate earning capacities, may require different analysis when substantial assets are involved.
The court's recognition that maintaining two households costs more than one acknowledges the basic economic challenge facing all divorcing couples, regardless of their financial circumstances. However, the ruling suggests that when property divisions are structured to provide adequate income streams for both parties, additional spousal support may be unnecessary.
The case number 24-0830 adds to Iowa's body of family law precedent addressing the intersection of business ownership and spousal support obligations. The mixed ruling suggests the legal issues were complex enough to warrant different outcomes for different aspects of the appeals court's analysis.
For practitioners handling high-asset divorce cases in Iowa, the ruling provides a framework for arguing that substantial equalization payments can substitute for traditional ongoing spousal support when the receiving spouse can generate sufficient income from the settlement to maintain their standard of living.
The decision reflects broader trends in family law toward recognizing that one-size-fits-all approaches to spousal support may not serve the interests of justice in cases involving substantial business assets and high-income parties capable of financial independence following property division.