From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re the Marriage of Holaday

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 11, 2002
No. 2-734 / 02-0154 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2-734 / 02-0154.

Filed December 11, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, RICHARD VOGEL, Judge.

Julie Holaday appeals from the district court's decision to reduce her former spouse's child support obligation. AFFIRMED.

Barry Kaplan of Fairall, Fairall, Kaplan, Hoglan, Condon Freese, Marshalltown, for appellant.

John Thompson, Tama, for appellee.

Considered by HECHT, P.J., and VAITHESWARAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.


Dean and Julie Holaday divorced in 1996. Under the decree, Dean was obligated to pay Julie $480 per month in child support. In 2000, Dean lost his job as a computer programmer, due to downsizing. When his unemployment benefits ran out, Dean asked the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU) to review his support obligation and reduce it to $212 per month. See Iowa Code ch. 252H (2001). The CSRU recommended a reduction. Julie sought a court hearing to contest this recommendation. The district court rejected her challenge and confirmed the recommended reduction. This appeal followed.

I. Scope and Standard of Review

Iowa Code chapter 252H authorizes the CSRU to review and adjust support orders. Iowa Code § 252H.1. Either parent may request a court hearing of any notice of decision issued by the CSRU. If the CSRU receives such a request, it is obligated to certify the matter to the district court. Iowa Code § 252H.8(4). The hearing is to "be limited in scope to the adjustment or modification of the child or medical support or cost-of-living alteration of the child support provisions of a support order." Iowa Code § 252H.3(1). The hearing is not governed by the contested case or further review provisions of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act but is "an original hearing before the district court." Iowa Code § 252H.3(3). Cf. Krause v. State ex. rel. Iowa Dept. of Human Services, 426 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 1988) (holding chapter 252C hearing to determine monthly support obligation is not governed by judicial review provisions of Iowa Administrative Procedure Act). Our review of the court's order in the original proceeding is de novo. See State ex. rel. Heidick v. Balch, 533 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1995); State ex. rel. Houk v. Grewing, 586 N.W.2d 224, 226 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).

II. Propriety of Reduction

The CSRU informed the parents it intended to adjust the child support obligation "if the current support amount varies by more than 20% from the new amount calculated using the child support guidelines" and if the difference is "due to financial conditions that have lasted for at least three months and are expected to last for an additional three months." See Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-99.62(2)(a)(1), (2). Based on a child support guidelines worksheet proffered by Dean, the CSRU determined Dean's current support obligation met these criteria and an adjustment, therefore, was appropriate. This determination was essentially unrefuted. Dean attested he had no earned income and his unearned income from investments varied from year to year but was about $8,717 per year. He further attested he stopped receiving unemployment benefits six months before the date of his affidavit. Therefore, he satisfied the criteria specified by the CSRU for adjustment of the support order.

Notwithstanding this facial satisfaction of the CSRU's adjustment requirements, Julie argues the reduction is not equitable for a number of reasons. We will assume these arguments are relevant in a chapter 252H action for reduction of support.

First, Julie contends Dean failed to establish a substantial and material change of circumstances since the entry of the divorce decree. However, Iowa Code section 598.21(4) on which the CSRU relies for authority to adjust support, states that "a substantial change of circumstances exists when the court order for child support varies by ten percent or more from the amount which would be due pursuant to the most current child support guidelines. . . ."

Second, Julie argues Dean is able to satisfy the original support obligation by virtue of his substantial investments. Even if those investments could or should be considered in the child support calculus, Dean testified he had no new money not considered as part of the divorce settlement. He further testified that a portion of the invested money was received in connection with an accident settlement, with the expectation that it would be used for future eye surgery. Another portion constituted proceeds from the sale of a home that was awarded to him in the decree, proceeds that Dean stated would eventually be used to purchase another home.

Third, Julie contends Dean has funds to support their daughter in the amount set forth in the original decree because he was able to lend his sister $43,000. Dean stated, however, that he was able to earn almost twice as much interest annually on this loan than he did while it was invested, and he used this added income to satisfy his child support obligation.

Finally, Julie argues Dean could obtain another job. The district court addressed this contention, stating Dean had "actively sought further employment in various fields other than programming, but including programming," had "not attempted to shirk his duties" and understood "that if support payments are reduced as recommended by Child Support Recovery, he will need to keep everyone informed if and when he secures employment so that that figure may be readjusted." We concur in this assessment.

III. Attorney Fees

Dean seeks appellate attorney fees. Assuming without deciding that chapter 252H authorizes an award of fees, we decline to order them.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In re the Marriage of Holaday

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 11, 2002
No. 2-734 / 02-0154 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2002)
Case details for

In re the Marriage of Holaday

Case Details

Full title:IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIE ANN HOLADAY and DEAN BYRON HOLADAY. Upon the…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Dec 11, 2002

Citations

No. 2-734 / 02-0154 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2002)