Opinion
No. 5-788 / 05-0569
Filed November 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, K.D. Briner, Judge.
Carol Ann Schmitt, f/k/a Carol Ann Trammell, appeals from the district court's order modifying the child support obligation of Billy Wrenn Trammell, Jr. AFFIRMED.
Mark E. Mershon of Mershon Law Firm, Cedar Falls, for appellant.
Billy Wrenn Trammell, Jr., pro se.
Patricia McGivern, Waterloo, for Child Support Recovery Unit.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Carol Ann Schmitt, f/k/a Carol Ann Trammell, appeals from the district court's order modifying the child support obligation of Billy Wrenn Trammell, Jr., following an Iowa Code chapter 252H (2003) review of an action filed by the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The marriage of Carol and Billy was dissolved in 1997. The dissolution decree set Billy's child support obligation at $680 per month for the support of two minor children. After one of the children reached majority in 2003, the CSRU of the Iowa Department of Human Services recommended Billy's support obligation be reduced to $365 per month. After a hearing, the district court approved the CSRU's recommendation and entered an order reducing the child support to $365 per month. Carol appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We perform de novo review for all modifications of a child support obligation arising in a dissolution decree. State ex. rel. Heidick v. Balch, 533 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1995). We give weight to the fact findings of the district court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g). Nevertheless, we will not disturb the district court's conclusions unless there has been a failure to do equity. In re Marriage of Wahlert, 400 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Iowa 1987).
III. Discussion.
Billy is a high school graduate who retired from the military on September 1, 2004, after twenty-three years and one-month of service. At the time of his retirement Billy had achieved the status of E-7, was earning a base pay of $3,498 per month, and could have remained in the military at his current status for an additional eleven months before he faced mandatory retirement. Billy testified that his decision to retire eleven months early and begin work with his father's consulting company for approximately $800 per month was strongly influenced by (1) the effects of a neurophysiologic impairment resulting in muscle atrophy in one arm that limited his performance of some military functions including the use of firearms, (2) his desire to spend more time with his new family, and (3) the opportunity to learn his father's business coupled with the prospect of becoming its proprietor upon his father's impending retirement. The CSRU determined Billy's net monthly income is $1,621.81 per month, and the district court found this figure to be "the best estimate of [Billy's] present earning capacity."
Billy also receives a gross military retirement pension of $1,862 per month.
Although the district court found that Billy has a neurological impairment that creates "physical limitations [which] significantly impair his present earning capacity," Billy was not discharged from the military as a consequence of any disability.
Carol disagrees. She asserts Billy voluntarily and substantially reduced his earnings by retiring early from the military and accepting a part-time job that pays less than a full-time minimum wage position. Carol maintains that where one parent voluntarily reduces their income "with improper intent to deprive their children of support," that parent is not entitled to reduce their child support payments and will have such payments calculated by reference to the parent's earning capacity rather than their actual monthly income. In re Marriage of Swan, 526 N.W.2d 320, 325 (Iowa 1995). Furthermore, Carol contends the record is devoid of credible medical evidence of any heath problem justifying either (1) Billy's decision to work part-time at a low wage, or (2) the district court's apparent conclusion that the resulting physical restrictions significantly lowered Billy's earning capacity.
We believe the district court's decision to set Billy's child support obligation at $365 per month was based in significant part on a credibility determination which we accord significant weight. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g). The district court found Billy's "physical limitations significantly impair his present earning capacity," implicitly crediting Billy's testimony with respect to neurological and functional impairment. The district court also concluded that Billy's retirement from the military was not "voluntary," but was instead motivated by the belief that in succeeding his father as the proprietor of the business, Billy's economic prospects and his ability to support his minor children would be maximized. The district court thus implicitly found the reduction in monthly income was not motivated by any improper purpose that would suggest Billy's net monthly income is not a good estimate of his earning capacity. Swan, 526 N.W.2d at 325. Because we agree with the district court that Billy's "present employment fairly reasonably reflects his current earning capacity," use of Billy's current net monthly income to recalculate the child support obligation was justified. See In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991). Carol has failed to meet her burden to prove equity requires a different result, and consequently we affirm.