Opinion
No. 2-762 / 01-1896
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Carl D. Baker, Judge.
Petitioner appeals the denial of his motion to stay child support collection. AFFIRMED.
Jerome Hadaway, Jewell, for appellant pro se.
Tammy Quade, Marshalltown, for appellee pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Ann Marie Brick, Deputy Attorney General, Karla Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Chambers, County Attorney, and Rhonda Pruismann, Assistant County Attorney for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Petitioner appeals the denial of his motion to stay child support collection. Specifically, he requests that his child support obligation be stayed temporarily pending further hearing. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings. Jerome and Tammy were married on September 8, 1989. The minor child, Johnathan Hadaway, was born on June 25, 1987.
Jerome filed a petition for dissolution on March 16, 1992. In said petition, Jerome stated, "the parties have one minor child, Johnathan Hadaway." He further referred to himself as Johnathan's "father." Jerome agreed to pay temporary child support in the sum of $272 per month. The marriage between the parties was dissolved on February 12, 1993, upon hearing and stipulation. The parties stipulated concerning custody, visitation, and child support. In addition, both parties testified that Jerome adopted Johnathan during the marriage. Jerome's final child support obligation was set in the sum of $263 per month. The dissolution decree was not appealed.
Jerome filed a petition to modify the decree on March 6, 1998, alleging that he was not Johnathan's father. He attached to the petition a stipulation signed by Tammy and himself requesting that his child support obligation be terminated. The petition was denied, and no appeal was taken.
On August 3, 2001, the Child Support Recovery Unit gave notice of an assignment of Jerome's child support payments and an income withholding order was entered on August 8, 2001. Thereafter, on September 10, 2001, Jerome filed a pro se motion in the dissolution action requesting that his child support obligation be stayed pending further hearing. The motion was denied by the district court as an impermissible collateral attack on the original dissolution decree. Jerome appeals.
Collateral Attack. This case involves a review of the district court's legal conclusion that Jerome's motion was an impermissible collateral attack on the original divorce decree. As such, review is for errors of law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; In re Marriage of Gallagher, 539 N.W.2d 479, 480 (Iowa 1995); Dennis v. Christianson, 482 N.W.2d 448, 450 (Iowa 1992).
We note, first of all, that Jerome did not file any action under Iowa Code chapter 600B directed to the issues of paternity or overcoming a court's prior establishment of paternity. He instead simply filed a motion in the original dissolution action requesting his child support obligation be stayed. The dissolution decree entered in 1993 found and concluded that Jerome was the adoptive parent of Johnathan. This finding and conclusion was based on Jerome's sworn testimony given before the district court. Jerome testified as follows:
Q. The two of you have one child?
A. Yes.
Q. And what's his name and age?
A. Johnathan Glen Hadaway, age five.
Q. Did you adopt him during your marriage?
A. Yes.
His child support obligation was based upon this undisputed testimony. No motion to reconsider was ever filed, and an appeal was not taken.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that Jerome's motion was an impermissible collateral attack. This was clearly a nonjurisdictional attack on the 1993 dissolution decree. As a general rule, a decree or judgment cannot be attacked collaterally. Callenius v. Blair, 309 N.W.2d 415, 418 (Iowa 1981).
"[A] collateral attack upon a judgment is an attack made by or in an action or proceeding that has an independent purpose other than the impeaching or overturning of the judgment, although impeaching or overturning of the judgment may be necessary to the success of the action."
Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 1999) (quoting 47 Am. Jur.2d Judgments, section 906, at 377-78 (1995)). The only exception is lack of jurisdiction. Jerome did not challenge jurisdiction and, therefore, his motion to stay his child support obligation does not fit within the exception. We conclude the district court should be affirmed on this issue.
We conclude the other issues raised by Jerome to be without merit.