Opinion
No. 6-017 / 05-0516
Filed February 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert E. Sosalla, Judge.
Dennis Laughlin appeals from the provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Sharon Laughlin. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Benjamin W. Blackstock of Blackstock Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Carter J. Stevens of Roberts Stevens, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Dennis Laughlin appeals from the provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Sharon Laughlin. He contends the court erred in valuing the marital property, in calculating his temporary child support obligation, and in allocating the parties' obligation for uncovered medical expenses. We review his claims de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
Dennis and Sharon were married in May of 1973. They have four children. At the time of trial, Benjamin was twenty-eight, Stacey was twenty-six, Jill was eighteen, and Kevin was fifteen. Jill was pursuing a GED as a result of serious medical problems that forced her to leave school. The parties agreed that Sharon would remain in the marital home and have physical care of Kevin.
We first consider Dennis's claim the trial court erred in valuing the marital home. At trial, Dennis presented two appraisals that valued the marital home at $138,500. Sharon's appraiser indicated a value of $125,000 in the home if $6000 to $10,000 in repairs were first made. A market analysis of the home by a real estate agent yielded a probable sales price of $116,500. The agent further believed the home needed $24,000 in repairs to make the home marketable and detailed a long list of repairs needed. The district court valued the home at $116,500. We conclude this valuation is in the permissible range of the evidence and we will not disturb it on appeal. In re Marriage of Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d 640, 643 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Dennis next contends the court erred in setting the amount of his temporary child support. Temporary orders involving financial assistance in dissolution cases are final judgments which must be appealed within thirty days from the district court decision in order to preserve the right to contest the award of assistance. See In re Marriage of Denly, 590 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Iowa 1999). Because Dennis failed to appeal from the temporary order, he has waived his right to review. Likewise, we may not review any claims regarding his motion to modify the temporary support because it was not ruled upon. Kimm v. Kimm, 464 N.W.2d 468, 475 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990).
Finally, Dennis contends the court erred in allocating to him the expense of the first $250 per year in uncovered medical expenses. Child Support Guidelines Rule 9.12 requires the custodial parent to pay the first $250 in uncovered medical expenses. We amend the decree to provide that Sharon will be responsible for paying the first $250 per year of uncovered medical expenses for Kevin. Dennis will pay sixty percent of the uncovered medical expenses in excess of $250.
Costs of this appeal are taxed equally to both parties.