IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF FREDERICK AND OKSANA SHADDOCK

Motion for Order of Dismissal of Divorce
and Change of Address for Plaintiff

Plaintiff Frederick Shaddock moves the Court for an order dismissing this action because the requirements of the Iowa Code, Dissolution of Marriage and Domestic Relations, in particular sections §598.5(7), §598.17, § 598.2, and §598.9, have not been met.

According to sections §598.5(7) and §598.17 of the Iowa Code, the grounds for divorce stipulate that there must be a breakdown of the marriage such that there is no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved. 

Contrary to this, both parties have not lived separate and apart, for more than a few weeks while traveling.  Plaintiff and Respondent have continuously lived together in the same apartment, sharing the same bed and board, since October 2009 until the present day.  They have resided under the same roof, sharing bed and board, and have resumed marital relations since that date.

The husband and wife have not pursued separate lives.  On the contrary, they together celebrated the holidays of Frederick's birthday (October 7, 2009), Thanksgiving 2009, Christmas 2009, New Year's 2010, their Wedding Anniversary (January 17, 2010), and most recently Easter in Washington DC.

Mr. and Mrs. Shaddock have filed their tax return on April 14, 2010 as "Married - Filing Jointly" for the Internal Revenue Service.  The address used for the IRS was their marital home, a condo at 490 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.

Mr. and Mrs. Shaddock both have Washington DC Drivers Licenses. They are citizens of the District of Columbia, pay taxes in DC, and are no longer citizens of Iowa.  Therefore the Iowa Court, nor the Iowa tax payers, should not be burdened by this matter of non-citizens. 

Although the Petitioner had resided in Iowa at the time of the original petition for divorce, on September 18, 2009 and fulfilled the one year requirement of §598.6, Frederick's job responsibilities changed from Iowa to Washington DC.  Business became too slow in Iowa, so it was necessary to move to a city for steady employment.  Oksana has worked in DC since 2001.  Frederick and Oksana got back together.  It would be a financial burden for both of them to travel 1000 miles to Iowa for hearings. 

The Shaddock condo at 1000 University Manor, A28, Fairfield Iowa is currently rented out to unrelated tenants.  Further, the property is up for sale, and an offer is pending.  This indicates no plan to be Iowa citizens.  Accordingly, this Motion should include an update to the Court's records for address of the Plaintiff, to be the same as the Respondent's: 490 M Street SW, Apartment 400, Washington, DC 20024.

The most appropriate jurisdiction for this matter would be Washington DC, where the plaintiff and respondent reside and pay taxes.  Even according to the DC Code, § 16-904, the requirements under Grounds for Divorce have not been met.

According to Iowa Code § 598.2 and § 598.9, covering jurisdiction and residence, respectively, "if the averments as to residence are not fully proved, the hearing shall proceed no further, and the action be dismissed by the court."

Unfortunately, the Respondent, Oksana, has developed some stress related health issues, including a kidney stone.  It would put undue additional stress on her at this time, to proceed with a divorce.  She especially needs the financial and emotional support of her husband at this time.

Therefore, the Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider whether Iowa is still the appropriate jurisdiction, and to give the marriage an opportunity to survive, by dismissing this case. 

Sincerely,

Frederick Shaddock
Plaintiff, Pro Se
490 N Street, SW  Apt. 400
Washington, DC  20024
202-829-4444

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of April 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via first-class postage prepaid to J. Terrence Denefe, 104 South Court Street, Ottumwa, Iowa 52501, as well as email to tdenefe@lisco.com and fax to 641-683-3597.

______________________________
Frederick Shaddock, Pro Se

POINTS OF AUTHORITY

Iowa Code

§ 598.5 The petition for dissolution of marriage shall:
...
7. Allege that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

§ 598.2 Jurisdiction and venue.  (You can file for divorce in Iowa if at least one spouse resides in the state of Iowa.)

§ 598.6  Additional contents.
Except where the respondent is a resident of this state and is served by personal service, the petition for dissolution of marriage, in addition to setting forth the information required by section 598.5, must state that the petitioner has been for the last year a resident of the state,

§ 598.9 Residence--failure of proof. If the averments as to residence are not fully proved, the hearing shall proceed no further, and the action be dismissed by the court.

§ 598.17  Dissolution of marriage--evidence.
A decree dissolving the marriage may be entered when the court is satisfied from the evidence presented that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

District of Columbia Code

§ 16-904. Grounds for divorce, legal separation, and annulment.
(a) A divorce from the bonds of marriage may be granted if:
(1) both parties to the marriage have mutually and voluntarily lived separate and apart without cohabitation for a period of six months next preceding the commencement of the action;
(2) both parties to the marriage have lived separate and apart without cohabitation for a period of one year next preceding the commencement of the action.
...
(c) For purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, parties who have pursued separate lives, sharing neither bed nor board, shall be deemed to have lived separate and apart from one another even though:
(1) they reside under the same roof; or
(2) the separation is pursuant to an order of a court.

______________________________
Frederick Shaddock, Pro Se
Plaintiff, Pro Se
490 N Street, SW  Apt. 400
Washington, DC  20024
202-829-4444