“You’ve got 10 days to make good on this or you’re going to owe me 10 days. It’s your choice,” Senior District Court Judge Thomas Bice said, ordering the sheriff on this year’s ballot to cooperate with the sale of the ex-couple’s marital home and the division of his public employee retirement pension. “The court believes your behavior has been obstructive and finds you in contempt of court.”

It was a decisive ending Monday morning in the Calhoun County Courthouse, after a cross-examination by ex-wife Tracey Layman’s divorce attorney went off the rails with Anderson, devolving into a form of bickering where questions could hardly be asked and responses were reluctant or evasive.

Layman has alleged that, for months, Anderson has refused to cooperate with who could sell, show or be involved in selling the home, and has refused to respond to documents finalizing the division of his Iowa Public Employees Retirement System account. Court filings say that the home’s lack of sale in particular has caused a financial hardship: the divorce allotted $16,500 from the sale of the house to her.

The IPERS account valued at an estimated refund value of $200,000 remains intact, but contention lies in the option they should choose to divide it equitably, something not stipulated in their divorce decree.

Between responses from Anderson at his hearing to show the court why he should not be held in contempt for violating stipulations of his divorce decree from his former wife of 30 years, the court and plaintiff’s attorney implored Anderson to allow the cross-examiner to ask her questions, answer the questions asked and respond to polar questions with yes or no answers.

After about 10 minutes of tense questioning, the judge said he’d had enough.

“Thirty years for nothing,” Layman said afterwards.

Anderson said that he signed every bit of paperwork that had been required of him, accusing Layman of deliberately holding off on finalizing the real estate agent’s paperwork to put the house on the market until earlier this month. He remains confused as to why he was found in contempt of court.

“I’m being absolutely railroaded,” he said. “This is all her. I have no control over any of this, none.”

He questioned what motive he would have to delay the sale of his house, which would reduce his alimony payments. But the court found he has been obstructive, nonetheless.

“I’m going to have to sign the paperwork and agree to their option (for the retirement plan), which is just so wrong,” the sheriff said, committing to do what it took to avoid jail time.

But after the dust has settled on the divorce, which was finalized in late October, he has other fears than being on the wrong side of the bars: losing his bid for re-election against challenger Pat Riley.

“This will probably destroy me and it has nothing to do with my job,” he said. “I did absolutely nothing wrong.”

Layman said that Anderson married his current wife in Las Vegas before the divorce was finalized in October.

“He’s a sheriff. He should honestly know how divorces go,” she said. “He should know we are not divorced until a judge says so.”

Conceding that he had a romantic getaway in Las Vegas Oct. 11, Anderson said he did not officially receive and file a marriage license until Oct. 31 in Iowa, after the divorce was finalized. He told The Messenger that he and his current wife held off on getting married in Vegas after his divorce attorney said Layman was deliberately delaying the finalization.

Calhoun County Attorney Tina Meth-Farrington confirmed that her office initially looked into the allegations before turning them over to the Pocahontas County attorney. She said she could not prosecute law enforcement officers in Calhoun County due to a conflict of interest.

“Calls were made to me,” she said. “I have been removed from investigation and prosecution of any charges regarding bigamy.”

“There has been communication with the Calhoun County Attorney’s Office regarding these types of matters,” confirmed Pocahontas County Attorney Dan Feistner.

Feistner referred The Messenger to Meth-Farrington for exclusive comment on the matter, declining to acknowledge whether any allegations merited prosecution or whether an open case existed.