Opinion
No. 4-270 / 03-1584
May 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Leo Oxberger, Judge.
Darrell Van Kampen appeals the issues of child support, transportation expenses, and attorney fees in this paternity action. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Michael Brice, Oskaloosa, for appellant.
Kindra Zaun, for appellee pro se.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Darrell Van Kampen and Kindra Zaun are the parents of Braydon, born in November 2001. The parties lived together at the time of the child's birth, but later separated. In May 2002 Darrell filed a petition seeking to establish the paternity of the child.
At the time of the paternity hearing in August 2003, Darrell was forty-eight years old. He lived in Pella and was self-employed in a car repair business in Oskaloosa. Kindra was forty-one-years old and employed as a dental assistant. She lived in Des Moines.
The parties stipulated to having joint legal custody, with Kindra having physical care. They also agreed to each pay one-half of the cost of Braydon's medical insurance, and one-half of uncovered medical bills. The issues of child support, visitation, and attorney fees were submitted to the court.
Darrell's child support worksheet shows his gross annual income as $30,365, and Kindra's as $39,000. Darrell included tax forms, which showed his business had a net profit of $22 in 2000, $6865 in 2001, and a net loss in 2002. At the hearing, Darrell testified he expected his business to show a loss in 2003, although he also testified he was capable of earning $30,000 per year. Kindra's child support worksheet shows her gross annual income was $36,400. She testified her gross income was between $37,000 and $39,000 per year. She submitted a pay stub which showed her annual income was $36,400. She stated Darrell had told her his income was between $50,000 and $70,000. The district court determined Darrell's net annual income was $50,000 and Kindra's was $36,400. The court ordered Darrell to pay child support of $546.64 per month.
Darrell's brief states this amount was $22,000. However, the appendix and his Schedule C for 2000, which calculates his profit or loss from business for tax purposes, shows this amount as $22.
While the district court determined Darrell's annual income was $50,000, the amount of child support ordered matches that found on a worksheet submitted by Kindra which assumes Darrell's income was $40,000. The court made no findings regarding a deviation from the child support guidelines.
The court entered a visitation schedule for the parties. Kindra testified she did not want to provide transportation, because, "I don't feel comfortable driving back and forth with the vehicle that I have right now with a little baby. . . ." The court ordered, "Until such time as [Kindra] has a safe, reliable vehicle, [Darrell] shall provide all the transportation necessary for visitation." The court ordered Darrell to pay $3480 toward Kindra's trial attorney fees.
Darrell has appealed, raising the issues of child support, transportation, and trial attorney fees.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in this equity action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of the witnesses, the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g).
III. Child Support
Darrell contends his child support obligation is excessive because the district court improperly determined his income. Darrell claims the record does not support the court's finding that his annual income is $50,000. He does not suggest what his income might be, although he does point out that he had a loss in 2002 and expected a loss in 2003.
To ascertain a party's income for the purposes of determining child support, we must determine the parent's current monthly income from the most reliable evidence presented. In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991).
We find Kindra's testimony that Darrell could make between $50,000 to $70,000 per year to be unpersuasive because it is not supported by any other evidence. The district court found that Darrell had monthly bills of about $4400 per month, and was current in his payments, and from this the court concluded Darrell earned at least $50,000 per year. However, the actual bills Darrell testified to were about $3100 per month. We also note Darrell testified he had used money from an insurance settlement, selling a tractor, and cashing out his retirement funds to keep current on his bills.
The parties did not distinguish between bills paid by Darrell individually and those paid by his business. Some of these bills may have already been deducted as business expenses, prior to the calculation of his income.
On our de novo review, we determine Darrell's income is the amount found on his child support worksheet, $30,365. We note Darrell admitted he was capable of making $30,000 per year. Kindra's income is $36,400. We conclude Darrell should pay child support of $424 per month.
IV. Transportation
Darrell claims it is inequitable to require him to provide all of the transportation for his visitation with Braydon. He believes the district court's provision is unworkable because there is no means to determine when Kindra has a safe, reliable vehicle, and that there is no incentive in the decree for her to get a better vehicle so that she will be required to transport Braydon one way for visitation.
We determine transportation should be shared. See In re Marriage of Bonnette, 492 N.W.2d 717, 722 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). Kindra should transport Braydon to Darrell for visitation, and Darrell should return the child to Kindra at the end of his visitation.
V. Attorney Fees
Darrell asserts the district court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay $3480 towards Kindra's trial attorney fees. The district court has considerable discretion in awarding attorney fees. In re Marriage of Okonkwo, 525 N.W.2d 870, 873 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). We find no abuse of discretion under the facts of this case.
We affirm as modified. Costs of this appeal are assessed one-half to each party.