Opinion
No. 2-201 / 01-0984
Filed August 28, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Larry J. Conmey, Judge.
Carrie Guerrero appeals a district court ruling granting Luis Guerrero's motion to quash an order for income withholding.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Erik C. Booth, of Fisher, Ehrhart, McCright Turner, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Luis Guerrero, pro se, Cedar Rapids.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Carrie Guerrero appeals a district court ruling granting Luis Guerrero's motion to quash an order for income withholding. We reverse and remand.
Carrie and Luis were married in 1980 and are the parents of two daughters, born in 1985 and 1986. In 1990 the State of Iowa initiated support proceedings against Luis pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 252A. The proceeding resulted in an April 1990 order that he pay $110.94 per week for the support of the two children. In April 1990 Carrie filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. It resulted in a July 1990 decree that placed physical care of the children with Carrie and ordered Luis to pay the same amount of child support as ordered in the earlier chapter 252A case. Thereafter essentially all proceedings were filed in the support action but copies were captioned and filed in the dissolution proceeding as well.
An April 15, 1996 order, stipulated to by the parties, reduced Luis's child support obligation to $79 per week, an amount equivalent to $342.30 per month ($79 per week X 4.333 weeks per month = $342.30). In May 2000 the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU) of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) gave notice of intent to review and adjust Luis's child support obligation, pursuant to chapter 252H. Carrie provided a sworn financial statement dated May 31, 2000. It indicated in part that she received $838 social security per month for the parties' two daughters. Luis did not respond to the notice or participate in the administrative proceeding. The CSRU reached a tentative decision and gave notice of its decision.
Carrie challenged the CSRU decision on the ground the CSRU had not included Luis's $1100 per month pension in his income. The CSRU conducted a second review and as a result ordered that Luis's child support obligation be adjusted to $175 per week. In determining his net income for child support purposes it found his gross income to be $3186.88 per month. This consisted of $832 per month social security retirement benefits, wages of $1254.88 per month, and a pension of $1100 per month. The CSRU's "Guidelines Calculation Comments" indicate that it confirmed with the Social Security Administration that Luis received $489.70 per month after payment of child support of $342.30, a total social security benefit of $832 per month.
The CSRU entered an administrative order for adjustment of Luis's child support obligation to $175 per week. The district court entered an order approving the administrative order on October 9, 2000. The CSRU subsequently entered an order for income withholding, requiring that $175 per week be withheld from Luis's income for his current support obligation and a small additional amount be withheld for delinquent support. On March 21, 2001 Luis filed a motion to quash the order for income withholding.
In his motion Luis alleged that he was retired and as a result the children were entitled to and were each receiving social security benefits of $382 per month. He alleged the DHS had refused to give credit toward his child support obligation for such payments, and argued the order for income withholding was therefore in error concerning the amount that should be withheld for his current support obligation and the amount the DHS claimed to be delinquent. He argued he was entitled to a credit against his child support obligation for the social security payments made to Carrie for the children as a result of his retirement.
The trial court correctly held that Luis was not entitled to credit for the dependent benefits paid as a result of his retirement. See State ex rel. Pfister v. Larson, 569 N.W.2d 512, 515-17 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) (holding child support obligor was not entitled to offset against obligor's child support obligation the social security benefits received by the obligee as a result of the obligor's retirement). The trial court went on, however, to address a matter not raised by the motion to quash, and held that Luis had shown an error in the amount of withholding, "[a]s the State of Iowa has included social security dependent's benefits in their calculation of [Luis's] monthly income." It therefore granted the motion to quash, and further ordered the State to recalculate Luis's child support obligation and submit an amended income withholding order.
Carrie contends the trial court erred in concluding the State of Iowa had included the children's social security benefits in its calculation of Luis's monthly income. She requests an award of attorney fees.
A petition for review and adjustment of a child support obligation proceeds as an ordinary civil action in equity, and our review is de novo. State ex rel. Weber v. Denniston, 498 N.W.2d 689, 690 (Iowa 1993).
The CSRU confirmed with the Social Security Administration that Luis received a social security benefit of $832 per month, with $489.70 received after payment of $342.30 per month in child support. The $342.30 is the exact amount of monthly child support he was obligated to pay pursuant to the April 15, 1996 order. The $832 per month is a different amount than the $838 per month Carrie swore in her May 31, 2000 financial statement that she was receiving for the children from the Social Security Administration. It is also a different amount than the $764 per month ($382 per month for each of the two children) Luis believed Carrie was receiving for the children. The $832 per month social security benefit the CSRU included in Luis's income is his own social security retirement benefit, out of which $342.30 was being withheld pursuant to income withholding orders to pay his monthly child support obligation. The trial court made a factual error in finding that the State of Iowa had included social security dependent's benefits in the calculation of Luis's monthly income. Resultantly, it erred in granting Luis's motion to quash and ordering his child support obligation recalculated and an amended income withholding order submitted. We reverse on this issue.
Any action initiated under chapter 252H is limited in scope to support matters, and non-support issues are not to be considered by the CSRU or the court. Iowa Code § 262H.3 (1999). Carrie has not cited, and we have not found, any authority supporting an award of attorney fees in this review and adjustment action. We deny her request for attorney fees.
The trial court's ruling granting the motion to quash the order for withholding was entered over a full year ago. As a result of that order and subsequent proceedings Luis's child support arrearage may now be significantly different than it was when the quashed order was entered. It would thus be inappropriate to order that the quashed order for income withholding be re-entered. We remand with directions that a new order for income withholding, tailored to fit presently existing circumstances, be entered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.