Opinion
No. 2-026 / 01-0848.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, RONALD H. SCHECHTMAN, Judge.
Daniel Heiman appeals the district court's reduction of child support, arguing it should have been reduced further. Eileen Langenfeld cross-appeals. AFFIRMED.
A. Eric Neu of Neu, Minnich, Comito Hall, P.C., Carroll, for appellant.
Julie Greteman, of Green, Siemann Greteman, P.L.C., Carroll, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Daniel Heiman appeals from the district court's reduction of his child support obligation, contending it should have been reduced further. Eileen Langenfeld cross-appeals, asserting the reduction went too far. We affirm.
Background facts and proceedings .
Daniel and Eileen were divorced by decree entered on January 28, 1998. That ruling granted Eileen physical care of the parties' four children and ordered Daniel to pay child support. On December 21, 1998, Daniel filed a petition to modify the decree, alleging his income had changed drastically. The court dismissed the petition. On August 31, 2000, Daniel filed his second petition for modification, again alleging a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a reduction in his child support payment. Following a trial, the court ordered Daniel's support obligation be reduced from $1,037 to $689 per month. Daniel appeals, and Eileen cross-appeals, from this order.
Scope of review .
Our review of this modification action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight to the trial court's factual findings but are not bound by them. In re Marriage of Bolick, 539 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Iowa 1995).
Modification .
In arriving at the $689 figure for Daniel's monthly support, the district court imputed income of $24,592 per year from his employment at Beardmore Chevrolet. The court reached this figure by looking to his income of $22,727 the year after the parties' divorced and adding an annual four per cent cost of living increase. This was appropriate. See In re Marriage of Flattery, 537 N.W.2d 801, 803 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995) ("It is appropriate to consider earning capacity rather than actual earnings in applying the Uniform Child Support Guidelines."). The court also acted properly in averaging Daniel's farm income over a four-year period, for a net loss of $42 per year. See In re Marriage of Cossel, 487 N.W.2d 679, 683 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992) (authorizing the average method of calculating income to determine the child support obligations of a farmer).
The district court appears to have aptly considered both the decline in the farm economy and the unique method of Daniel's work assignment and compensation. The district court also appropriately rejected Daniel's assertion it should consider his "in kind" compensation to his children, such as providing rides and entertaining them. While it is certainly important for each parent to be involved with the children, our statutory method for calculating child support does not contemplate an offset for such "in kind" services of either parent. See Iowa Code § 598.21(4) (2001). The court also took note that in 2000, Daniel worked an average of only seventy hours per month; down from the 118 hours he averaged in 1997.
Implicit in the court's ruling was that Daniel was less than forthcoming in portraying his financial condition, both in terms of his expenses and the alleged decline in his net worth. The district court made credibility findings, to which we defer. See In re Marriage of Butterfield, 500 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
The district court made detailed factual findings supported in the record and considered the divergent arguments of both parties. While neither party left the courtroom completely satisfied with the ruling, on our de novo review of the decision, it appears the district court carefully sorted through the basically uncontested facts to arrive at an amount of child support that would be necessary to provide for the needs of the children and do justice between the parties. See Flattery, 537 N.W.2d at 803. We therefore affirm the district court in this regard.
Attorney fees .
Eileen appeals the district court's refusal to award her 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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the parties to pay their own attorney fees.
Eileen also requests an award of appellate attorney fees. An award of appellate attorney fees is discretionary. In re Marriage of Ask, 551 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Iowa 1996). We consider the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the party making the request was obligated to defend the district court's decision on appeal. Id. In consideration of Eileen's needs and Daniel's ability to pay, we award Eileen $2500 in appellate attorney fees. Costs on appeal assessed to Daniel.
AFFIRMED.