Opinion
No. 3-338 / 02-1779
Filed June 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Carl D. Baker, Judge.
Respondent appeals from the district court order denying his application to modify. AFFIRMED.
Barry Kaplan of Fairall, Fairall, Kaplan, Condon Frese, Marshalltown, for appellant.
Elizabeth Hand, Marshalltown, appellee pro se.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Donald Thul appeals from the district court order denying his application to modify, which requested the court to reduce his child support obligation and order Elizabeth Thul to contribute to the visitation expenses of the parties' minor children. Donald contends the district court erred in concluding he failed to prove a substantial change in circumstance requiring modification of his child support, in denying his request to share visitation expenses, and in awarding Elizabeth $400 in attorney fees. We review his claims de novo. Dale v. Pearson, 555 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
The decree dissolving the parties' marriage was filed on February 25, 1999. The parties agreed to joint legal custody of the three children, with Elizabeth assuming primary physical care. Donald agreed to pay $750 per month in child support. Donald had worked at Lennox Industries, earning $39,000 per year. However, Donald lost his job before the dissolution decree was entered. When the decree was entered, Donald was working at Sedlacek Wholesale Meat, earning $7.00 per hour. Since then, Donald has held several other positions and has most recently begun his own business. He earned $9689 in the last six months of 2001. Based on this income, Donald petitioned for modification of his child support obligation. The district court noted Donald agreed to pay $750 per month in child support after his termination from Lennox Industries. Accordingly, Donald has not proven a substantial change in circumstance warrants modification of his child support obligation.
The district court also denied Donald's request to order Elizabeth to share with his visitation expenses since Donald has moved 125 miles from Elizabeth. The court noted Elizabeth's vehicle is not reliable, and therefore Elizabeth should not be required to share visitation transportation. We find no error.
Finally, Donald argues the district court erred in awarding Elizabeth $400 in attorney fees. An award of attorney fees rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486, 491 (Iowa 1995). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Elizabeth $400 in attorney fees.