In re the Marriage of Bailey ( 2018 )

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-2055
Filed September 12, 2018
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LEE T. BAILEY
AND AMIE JO BAILEY
Upon the Petition of
LEE T. BAILEY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
AMIE JO BAILEY, n/k/a AMIE JO RUSSELL
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, Susan L.
Christiansen, Judge.
Amie Jo Russell (formerly Bailey) appeals from the district court’s
modification of the decree dissolving her marriage to Lee Bailey. AFFIRMED AS
MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Christine Sand of Wild, Baxter & Sand, PC, Guthrie Center, for appellant.
Dennis R. Mathahs of Mathahs Law Office, Marengo, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
Amie Jo Russell (formerly Bailey) appeals from the district court’s orders
modifying the decree dissolving her marriage to Lee Bailey, arguing the district
court erred in several respects. First, she contends the court improperly modified
the physical-care placement of the parties’ minor children from her to Lee,
asserting Lee failed to establish that there was a substantial change in
circumstances and that he was the superior caregiver to warrant modification.
Second, she maintains the court improperly imputed only minimum-wage income
to Lee for purposes of calculating her child-support obligation, given the court’s
finding that Lee had voluntarily reduced his income. Third, Amie asserts the court
improperly ordered that her child support obligation be effective retroactively.
Fourth and finally, Amie argues the court improperly failed to hold Lee in contempt
for his failure to pay her child support. Upon our review, we affirm as modified and
remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Amie and Lee married in 2001 and divorced in 2008. They have three
children, two of which are minors, though one will turn eighteen this year. The
decree placed the children in both parents’ joint legal custody, with Amie having
“permanent primary physical care” of the children and with Lee having “reasonable
and liberal” visitation. Lee’s 2008 affidavit of financial status reported he was self-
employed grossing $800 per week (no deductions are shown),1 and he was
ordered to pay monthly child support of $690.
1
Thus, Lee’s income was $41,600 annually ($800 x 52). The decree indicates Lee’s net
monthly income was $3466.67 ($41,600 per year).
3
Less than a year after the parties divorced, Amie moved from Iowa with their
children. Lee subsequently filed a petition for modification of the decree,
requesting he be granted physical care of the children. He also sought that Amie
be cited for contempt for not complying with the visitation provisions of the parties’
decree. The court in December 2009 found Amie in contempt but permitted Amie
to purge the contempt by complying with the court’s order granting Lee certain
scheduled visits with the children. Amie complied and the contempt was
dismissed.
A trial on Lee’s 2009 modification petition was held in 2010. Thereafter, the
court entered its decree of modification, making modifications to the parties’ decree
but leaving the children in Amie’s physical care. Although the court found Amie
had lived a “nomadic lifestyle” after moving from Iowa, the court found Amie’s
situation had stabilized after she moved to North Carolina. The court explained:
Amie claims to see the past error of her ways. Visitation has gone
much better since the contempt was purged.
Lee wishes to continue to rehash the denial of his telephone
visits with the children. His ill will is understandable but offers little
assistance to the children’s best interest. Lee has likewise moved
several times since the decree but all within the State of Iowa. . . .
Both Amie and Lee are strong-willed and can only view a
situation from their respective vantage or angle. Little or no
communication exists between the parties. In dealing with the
children, Lee’s strength appears to be outdoor activities and horses.
Amie’s strength appears to be in providing the children academic and
religious programs. Both need to work on their respective skills of
compromise and communication with each other. The children’s
wellbeing demands same.
....
This court specifically cautions [Amie] of the following: (a) not
to return to her nomadic lifestyle; (b) to encourage Lee’s visitation
with the children; and (c) to schedule medical appointments and
religious activities not to interfere with Lee’s custodial periods. The
court specifically cautions Lee not to undercut the children’s needs
4
by promoting his own desires. The court cautions both parties to
improve their communication with each other.
Thereafter, Lee struggled to pay Amie child support as decreed. It appears
he started getting behind in his payments by October 2011 and was approximately
$5000 in arrears by September 2012. In March 2013, Lee was in $11,250 in
arrears. Amie and Lee entered into a joint stipulation so that Lee could get caught
up on the amount owed, and the district court approved the stipulation. Lee agreed
he was “in contempt of court for willfully violating his court ordered support
obligation to the minor children of this matter.” A year later, Lee had complied with
the terms of the approved stipulation and purged himself of the contempt finding.
At the end of 2013, Lee sought to reduce his child support obligation by
requesting a review and adjustment from the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU).
The financial-statement form Lee signed in January 2014 stated Lee was
employed full-time as a truck driver. Though the form had a place to fill in “[t]he
amount of [his] last paycheck,” no information was provided.2 The CSRU’s review
determined Lee’s gross monthly income at that time was $3490.68, and, after
adjustments, his net income was $2703.63 per month.3 After determining Amie’s
income, the CSRU calculated Lee’s support obligation had actually increased
under the child support guidelines—from $690 to $943 per month—based upon
his and Amie’s incomes. Lee then asked to withdraw his request to review and
adjust his child support. Amie requested the CSRU to continue the review.
2
The form also directed that he attach his last three paystubs. However, none appear in
our electronic record. It is unknown if Lee did not provide them to the CSRU or they were
simply not included in this binder.
3
Based upon the gross monthly figure, Lee’s annual income at that time was $41,888.16
($3490.68 x 12), with a net annual income of $32,443.56 ($2703.63 x 12).
5
Ultimately, the matter was set for hearing. By the time of the July 2014 hearing,
the CSRU revised its calculations increasing Lee’s recommended child support to
$1038 per month. The court ordered Lee’s obligation be increased to $1038 per
month for the three minor children, then reduced to $897 after the eldest reached
majority, then $637 after the middle child reached majority.
Things came to a head around Christmas 2015. Lee was to have Christmas
visitation with the children, and he bought airline tickets to fly them to Iowa. Amie
did not send the children, and Lee ultimately filed an application to show cause.
Not buying Amie’s explanation, the court found Amie in contempt. The court
allowed Amie to purge the contempt by complying with its order, which included
Amie paying for the cost of the tickets plus new tickets for the children to visit Lee.
Amie complied, and the court purged her contempt in June 2016.
In October 2016, Lee again sought to reduce his child support obligation
through the CSRU. Lee’s financial-statement form signed in January 2017 stated
he was self-employed, and on the blank line to indicate “Job Title or Occupation,”
Lee wrote, “ATV Repair—just setting up no income.” Based upon Lee having no
income, the CSRU determined under the child-support guidelines, Lee’s support
obligation was to be $50 per month.
In March 2017, Amie challenged the CSRU’s contemplated reduction of
child support, based upon Lee’s voluntary reduction of his income. Lee then filed
a petition for modification of the decree, requesting the two minor children be
placed in his care and Amie pay him child support. He subsequently filed an
affidavit of financial status stating his income was “$0.00 per month.” In July 2017,
6
Amie filed an application for show cause stating Lee had failed to meet his child
support obligations and was $4500 in arrears.
All of the matters pending between the parties were tried to the court on
August 16, 2017. With the consent of the parties, the judge visited with the parties’
two minor children outside of the presence of the parties and their counsel.4 At the
end of the trial, the court issued an initial ruling from the bench.
Regarding the child support issue, I find there’s been a voluntary
reduction in income. Pretty substantial. I think that I’m not going to
touch the child support as far as the numbers that have been
submitted. . . . I don’t find contempt. Even by Amie’s own testimony,
she did not find that it was on purpose, that [Lee was] trying to pay
what you could while building up a new business. I do find that the
reduction in income was voluntary, a pretty significant voluntary
reduction. For purposes of the child support calculation I’m going to
direct the [CSRU] attorney to recalculate child support assessing the
minimum wage full-time status for you. I’m also going to not make
that retroactive. It will be effective upon the filing of the decree. So
the old amount remains in place until a recalculation.
With regard to the contempt issue concerning Lee’s child support arrearage, the
court ruled,
What I’ll do is continue the rule to show cause to give him an
opportunity to get current. I don’t find you have willfully disobeyed;
but you are in violation of court order. You do have an arrearage.
Based on my finding, you voluntarily reduced your income and not
real sympathetic to that argument. But I do not find that it was willful;
but you are not current. But you’ve tried hard to get current as of the
1st of the year. So, instead of purge, I will continue the rule to show
cause, and you are to be current by that next hearing date.
The court stated it was going to order that both children be placed in Lee’s custody,
finding there had been a substantial change in circumstances not contemplated at
the time of the 2010 modification decree and that Lee had shown he has a superior
4
The parties agreed the judge’s summer law clerk, a second year law student, could be
present during the judge’s visit with the children.
7
parenting ability. The court explained its ruling to the parties’ two children on the
record:
Guys, I asked you to come back in because I wanted you to
hear it from me in the presence of Mom and Dad why I’m doing what
I’m doing. . . . This was a really super, super hard case for me.
Sometimes I have parents who’ve done really horrible things. . . .
That’s not your mom and dad’s case. Nobody presented any
evidence that Dad is a horrible dad. Nobody presented any evidence
that Mom is a horrible mom. I think when you are in the care of your
mom your mom makes good decisions. She provides for you
medically. She provides for you academically. You’re both little rock
stars in the school environment. That’s cool. Likewise, when you’re
with Dad. Are there lots [of people] allowed to live at Dad’s house?
Yeah. But I made a finding, which means I’m ruling, that’s not a bad
thing. Nothing was presented to the court those people are horrible
people or no child should be with them. Is it crazy and busy and
different than being with just Mom? Sure. But sometimes that’s how
family is.
So what are my concerns? My concerns are—whether you
guys are aware of the actual number or not—Mom and Dad had lots
of time in court. And when people get divorced, it’s the idea of the
court that you enter an order once and then we’re done until the kids
are grown up. When problems arise we have to come back to court.
Sometimes it’s not a big deal. . . . Other times it’s a big deal, like this
time. Not too long, about a year ago, I was the judge. You didn’t
come back or, at least, I didn’t see you a year ago. And it had to do
with something really serious. Your mom is a good mom to you guys;
but she did not follow another judge’s order, which is the same as
being my order. A different judge said, “You need to let Dad be with
the kids and when he’s supposed to be with the kids, you don’t
interfere with that.” Evidence was presented to the court that she did
do that. Even though maybe you guys didn’t sense it—maybe you
did—your dad had a right on paper to have a relationship with you
guys, and it was thwarted, kind of thrown off the track. So I made a
finding a year ago that, Mom, that was wrong. That was wrong for
you to flex muscle and not let Dad see the boys. You wasted a lot of
money on plane tickets. You guys know all about that. That’s not
why we’re here today. At that time, on that day, I could have changed
custody right that day. It’s one of the things you can do in contempt.
I could have, and I was this close to doing it. It really bothered this
court that Mom didn’t seem to take court orders seriously. They were
just suggestions instead of orders. The damage that’s been done
because of those years of her getting in the middle of your
relationship with your dad, it’s no wonder that—I know, in particular,
[the youngest child] might be a little bit less effected. You’re younger.
8
And [the older minor child] is a little more affected. The older you
get—if you lived with your dad and these things were happening, you
would want to be with your mom too. And we call that—the legal
term for that, it’s called “parental alienation of affection,” and it’s kind
of a big word; but what that means is one parent interferes with a
child’s feelings of love and affection towards the other parent. So
even though Mom didn’t do anything to physically hurt you guys, the
court considers it to be a form of emotional involvement when you
don’t let the other parent be a parent. But what’s happened since
2010 and the court changed custody—custody was always with Mom
and Dad had visits—the court changed custody to him to give Dad
physical custody in the summer because of these problems and Mom
was told to knock it off. Then we had that contempt just last summer.
And, since then, what’s happened? Yet, another move. One of the
biggest things the prior judge mentioned in ’10, he referred to your
mom’s life as “nomadic lifestyle,” that means moving around a lot.
Whatever the reasons were, you had another move happen. And
this court is concerned that you guys need stability. And I told them
a little bit. I summarized what you guys said. I never once asked
you where you want to live and never once did either of you tell me
where you wanted to live. The message I got loud and clear from
you boys is you moved around a lot. You had a lot of states and a
lot of school districts. Friends and stability are something that you
both struggle with as far as continuity in your life. Now, can I
guarantee Dad’s not going to move tomorrow? No. But the history
of this case shows Dad’s more stable than Mom. I think that’s in your
best interest. . . .
The court directed the parties to work out a plan for transitioning the children from
Amie’s care to Lee’s, and also visitation.5 The court anticipated the children going
home with their mother to get their things together and then having Lee bring them
back to Iowa to start school. The court indicated that because Lee will have
custody of the children that Amie would be responsible for child support. Specific
language for the child support provision was left “on the laps of CSRU to deal with.”
5
Because the start of school was just around the corner, the court asked the parties for a
proposed visitation schedule within a week of the hearing. Amie submitted a proposed
visitation schedule five days after the hearing. The record closed on November 3, 2017.
9
On November 28, 2017, the district court entered its written “Order re
Modification.” The order stated a “separate order would be entered regarding child
support and health insurance assuming the following: For Lee, the court imputes
minimum wage (full-time).” Concerning Amie’s application to show cause, the
order stated: “The court finds Lee has voluntarily reduced his income; however,
said reduction is not found to be willful in nature. Amie’s Application Alleging
Contempt should be continued to allow Lee an opportunity to show compliance
with repayment of his child support arrearage.” Finally, as to modification of the
children’s placement, the order stated:
Lee alleges a substantial change in circumstances warrants a
modification of the children’s physical care. In particular, he
submitted evidence regarding Amie’s refusal to abide by the court’s
orders regarding his visitation; two separate findings of contempt of
court (one of them being after the most recent modification
proceeding); Amie’s “bad mouthing” of him as the children’s father;
[the older minor child’s] request to live with his father; and Amie’s
frequent moves since entry of the decree in this matter. For the
reasons stated on the record, the court finds Lee has proven a
substantial change in circumstances.
Regarding the requirement that Lee prove superior parenting
in his effort to modify physical custody of the children, the court is
persuaded that Amie’s prior acts of violating Lee’s parental time with
the children is an indicator of her future actions. To the contrary, no
evidence was presented that Lee would not honor Amie’s
relationship in the children’s lives if he were to have physical custody.
The court also finds Lee is capable of providing more stability for the
children than they have experienced since the prior modification
proceeding. For the reasons stated on the record, the court finds
Lee has proven superior parenting.
The court ordered “primary physical care of [the two children] is transferred from
[Amie] to [Lee] effective August 16, 2017.”
A few days later, the district court entered an “Order for Modification of
Custody, Visitation, Support and Contempt.” The CSRU, using Amie’s current
10
income and imputing a full-time minimum-wage salary of $15,068.40 to Lee,
determined Amie’s support obligation under the guidelines for the two children was
$817 per month, then would be reduced to $567 per month when only one child
was to be supported. The court’s order further stated: “[Lee’s] obligation to pay
ongoing child support for the children is terminated effective August 16th, 2017.
[Amie] shall pay child support in the amount of $817 per month for the child(ren)
listed in this order. This amount is effective on August 16th, 2017 and shall
continue monthly thereafter.” Lee was ordered to pay his child support arrearage
at the rate of $178.80 per month.
Amie now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s modification of a decree, including child-support
provisions, de novo. See In re Marriage of McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d 528, 531 (Iowa
2006); In re Marriage of Rietz, 585 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Iowa 1998). We are not
bound by the district court’s findings, but we do give weight to those fact-findings,
particularly its credibility findings. See McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d at 531. Moreover,
“we recognize that the district court ‘has reasonable discretion in determining
whether modification is warranted and that discretion will not be disturbed on
appeal unless there is a failure to do equity.” Id. (cleaned up).6 Ultimately, the
“controlling consideration” is the children’s best interests. See In re Marriage of
Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015). This allows appellate courts “the
6
“Cleaned up” is a relatively new parenthetical used to indicate that internal quotation
marks, alterations, and citations have been omitted from quotations for readability
purposes. See United States v. Steward, 880 F.3d 983, 986 n.3 (8th Cir. 2018); Jack
Metzler, Cleaning Up Quotations, 18 J. App. Prac. & Process 143 (Fall 2017).
11
flexibility necessary to consider unique custody issues on a case-by-case basis.”
See id. (cleaned up).
III. Discussion.
On appeal, Amie challenges the district court’s modification in four respects.
She argues the court erred in changing the minor children’s physical care from her
to Lee. She also asserts the court erred in imputing to Lee only minimum-wage
income, given his voluntary reduction of income, and in not finding him in contempt
for his failure to pay the child support as decreed. Finally, she argues the court
erred in making her support obligation retroactive to the date of the hearing. We
address her arguments in turn.7
A. Modification of Physical Care.
“A party seeking modification of a dissolution decree must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence a substantial change in circumstances occurred
after the decree was entered,” as well as “a superior ability to minister to the needs
of the children.” In re Marriage of Harris, 877 N.W.2d 434, 440 (Iowa 2016). This
is a heavy burden. See id. Nevertheless, modification may be warranted “when
the parents simply cannot cooperate or communicate in dealing with their children.”
See id. at 441 (cleaned up).
7
Lee points out that Amie’s brief does not adequately explain how the alleged errors
claimed on appeal were preserved. We agree, as the timely filing of a notice of appeal
“has nothing to do with error preservation.” State v. Lange, 831 N.W.2d 844, 846-47 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2013); see also Thomas A. Mayes & Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Error Preservation
in Civil Appeals in Iowa: Perspectives on Present Practice, 55 Drake L. Rev. 39, 48 (Fall
2006) (explaining that “[a]s a general rule, the error preservation rules require a party to
raise an issue in the trial court and obtain a ruling from the trial court”) (footnote omitted).
However, because the issues Amie raises were decided by the district court, we find her
claims were preserved for our review.
12
We agree with the district court that this was a close call. Upon our de novo
review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the district court’s determination
that Lee established the necessary proof to support modification of the children’s
placement. We will not go as far as the district court to say Amie failed to take
court orders seriously and lived a “nomadic lifestyle.” The children’s overall
success while in Amie’s physical care despite several moves show Amie is a good
mother and the children thrived in her care. But there is no question Amie made
a few bad choices that did not encourage the children’s relationship with Lee, and
those decisions, coupled with all the facts before us, tips the scales sufficiently to
support modification. At this point in time, with the older minor child nearly an
adult, as well as that child’s wish to live with his father, further modification would
not be in the children’s best interests. Considering the children’s best interests,
we affirm the district court’s order modifying the children’s placement.
B. Reduction of Income.
Lee’s 2015 tax return shows his $55,552 in wages for the year as a truck
driver.8 In 2016, his wages as a truck driver were less—$32,216—because he quit
his job in August.9 He then started an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) repair business.
In re Marriage of McKenzie is directly on point. See 709 N.W.2d at 534. In
that case, the father said he voluntarily left his employment, not to avoid his child-
support obligation, but to be closer to his paramour. See id. at 533-34. However,
8
Of that amount, Lee claimed $700 in business expenses and $14,982 in meal and
entertainment expenses.
9
Lee claimed $10,944 in meal and entertainment expenses with regard to his truck driving
income.
13
the Iowa Supreme Court found that explanation insufficient to justify modifying the
child-support award, reasoning:
[O]ur first consideration under these circumstances is not what is in
the best interest of [the father], but what is in the best interest of his
child. If we consider [the father’s] reason for moving as the primary
consideration in deciding this case, we would place his selfish
desires over the welfare of his child and the custodial parent, not
provide for the needs of his child, and create a substantial injustice
between the parties.
[The father] was not free to plan his future without regard to
his obligation to his former wife and child. At the time [the father] left
Iowa, he knew he had a pre-existing duty to provide monthly child
support in the sum of $495 for his daughter and that he could earn
$45,260 annually if he stayed in Iowa. Even though he thought he
could earn a comparable salary in South Carolina at the time he quit
his job in Iowa, he had no idea what his earning capacity in South
Carolina would be. Under these circumstances, [the father’s] desire
for self-fulfillment is outweighed by the pre-existing duty he had to
his former spouse to provide adequate support for his minor child.
[The father] also claims his new job and expenses would not
allow him to pay child support based on an income other than his
actual earnings. Even if true, under the special circumstances of this
case we should still base [the father’s] child support obligation on his
earning capacity. Although [the father’s] income dramatically
declined, he was able to make the move to another state without a
change in his and [his paramour’s] lifestyle because their combined
income in South Carolina is substantially the same as what their
combined income would have been if they stayed in Iowa.
Finally, if we were to allow a reduction in [the father’s] child
support obligation based on his actual earnings, we would be
requiring [the mother] to increase her contribution for the support of
[their child]. [The mother] should not be forced to make up [the
father’s] reduced child support so [the father] can start a new life with
his new wife in South Carolina, when his combined family income in
South Carolina is substantially similar to the combined family income
he had available to him in Iowa.
Consequently, a strict application of the child support
guidelines using [the father’s] actual earnings under the
circumstances of this case would not provide for the needs of his
child and would result in a substantial injustice between the parties.
Therefore, it is necessary to use [the father’s] earning capacity to
determine his child support obligation under our guidelines.
Id. at 534.
14
In this case, the record shows Lee left his job with little regard to whether
he would be able to continue to support his children as ordered by the court. At
some point, the record is not clear, Lee moved from his home in Red Oak and
moved in with his girlfriend in Marengo. He did not look for a truck-driving job in
the Marengo area. Although he had some construction work experience, he did
not look into construction work in the Marengo area. Instead, he started an ATV
repair business called “E-Lee-T ATV Sales and Service,” “something [he] was darn
good at and enjoyed doing and the possibility being able to make some money
doing it and having a good business, we [Lee and his girlfriend] thought it was a
smart move.” He buys, resells, repairs, and services any make and model of ATV.
Asked at the August 2017 hearing whether the business was going to make any
money, Lee responded, “Right now and that, with the projections that I had
predicted starting off, I’m hitting my projections. I’m very satisfied with where I’m
at.” He saw growth in the business and thought the business had the potential for
replacing the income he had from his trucking work. The facts belie his optimism.
Lee’s 2016 income tax return reports a $17,850 loss for the business which
includes a $7000 expense for tools. Lee said he did not “personally” have the cash
for the tools but that it was “our money but not mine.” Lee explained “our” meant
he and his girlfriend. In a January 2017 financial statement submitted to the CSRU,
Lee listed his occupation as ATV repair and noted “just setting up no income.” In
an April 18, 2017 affidavit of financial status filed with the court, Lee reported
income of “$0.00 per month.” His financial affidavit filed just before the August
15
2017 hearing shows his gross income as $1000 per month,10 and net income as
$109.83 per month. The same affidavit shows his personal monthly expenses as
$2723.00.11 The business’s sales tax quarterly return reports total sales of
$3,000.00 for the period April 1 through June 30, 2017.
While we certainly hope Lee’s business endeavor, his “smart move,”
becomes successful, the burden is not on Amie to fully support their children so
Lee can tinker around with ATVs. The record is unclear as to how much support
Lee’s paramour of four years provides, but there is no indication that Lee’s lifestyle
has changed since leaving his employment. Like in McKenzie, we think “a strict
application of the child support guidelines” using Lee’s actual earnings under the
circumstances of this case would not provide for the needs of his children and
would result in a substantial injustice between the parties. See id. Therefore, it is
necessary to use Lee’s earning capacity to calculate Amie’s child support
obligation under the guidelines.
Having concluded we must use Lee’s earning capacity to establish Amie’s
child support obligation, we must now determine Lee’s earning capacity. See id.The McKenzie court found in its case that the
best indication of [the father’s] earning capacity is the salary he made
at [his former employer] before he quit to move to South Carolina
because he worked there for twenty-two years and we find at the
time he quit there was no indication that he could not have continued
in this position for the period he was obligated to provide child
support for [his child]. Thus, we fix his earning capacity at $45,260.
10
Lee admitted at the hearing that $12,000 a year is less than minimum wage.
11
Though Lee reported on his financial affidavit he had a monthly house payment of $500,
he testified he lived with his paramour and did not contribute to her house payment. He
claimed the amount listed on his financial affidavit was for his house payment/rent for the
property he used to live in but still owns. However, he further testified he had renters in
that property that “basically just pay[] the payment on the house,” which he did not report,
to offset his payment obligation.
16
Id. Similarly, we see no indication in this record that Lee could not have continued
in a truck-driving position for the period he was obligated to provide child support
for his children. We therefore fix his earning capacity at $40,000. Accordingly, we
remand the issue to the district court to recalculate Amie’s child support obligation.
C. Retroactive Support.
Amie argues the court erred in ordering her to pay child support
retroactively, asserting “[t]he judge’s directives regarding the changed support
becoming effective upon entry of the decree should have been followed and the
change in support obligation and amount, effective November, 2017 rather than
August, 2017.” For the following reasons, we disagree.
Here, the court’s oral ruling in August 2017 transferred physical care of the
children to Lee and determined the support award should be modified. The court
told Amie, “Mom, because [Lee] will have custody, you will owe child support,” and
“I am going to direct [the CSRU] to calculate child support effective on the filing of
the order,” but for reasons not reflected in our record, the written order was not
filed until a few months thereafter. While the district court’s modification decree is
generally “effective when the court files it with the clerk of court,” In re Marriage of
Johnson, 781 N.W.2d 553, 559 (Iowa 2010) (citing Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.453), Iowa
Code section 598.21C(5) (2017) expressly allows child support awards to be
“retroactively modified.” Specifically, that section provides:
Retroactivity of modification. Judgments for child support or child
support awards entered pursuant to this chapter . . . may be
retroactively modified only from three months after the date the
notice of the pending petition for modification is served on the
opposing party. . . . The prohibition of retroactive modification does
not bar the child support recovery unit from obtaining orders for
17
accrued support for previous time periods. Any retroactive
modification which increases the amount of child support or any
order for accrued support under this subsection shall include a
periodic payment plan. A retroactive modification shall not be
regarded as a delinquency unless there are subsequent failures to
make payments in accordance with the periodic payment plan.
It is true that Iowa case law prevents courts from imposing a retroactive
reduction in child support before modification is ordered. See In re Marriage of
Barker, 600 N.W.2d 321, 323-24 (Iowa 1999); see also In re Marriage of Herum,
No. 17-1161, 2018 WL 2084852, at *8 (Iowa App. May 2, 2018). However,
retroactive increases are permitted. See Barker, 600 N.W.2d at 323-24; see also
Herum, 2018 WL 2084852 at *9 n.13. Amie’s argument here is specific to her
support obligation—“The District Court Order Erred In Ordering Amie . . . to Pay
Child Support to Lee . . . Effective August 1, 2017.” This is a retroactive increase
of support. Overall, since the children were actually transferred to Lee’s physical
care in or about August 2017 and Amie’s argument is specific to her own support
obligation, we do not find the district court acted improperly in ordering her support
payments to start the time of its ruling from the bench.
D. Contempt.
Amie also argues the court erred in not finding Lee in contempt. However,
we only review contempt actions for errors of law if there was an initial finding of
contempt. See In re Marriage of Swan, 526 N.W.2d 320, 326-27 (Iowa 1995). This
is because Iowa Code section 598.23 provides
1. If a person against whom a temporary order or final decree
has been entered willfully disobeys the order or decree, the person
may be cited and punished by the court for contempt and be
committed to the county jail for a period of time not to exceed thirty
days for each offense.
18
2. The court may, as an alternative to punishment for
contempt, make an order . . . .
(Emphasis added.) See also Swan, 526 N.W.2d at 327. Use of the word “‘may’
confers a power.” Iowa Code § 4.1(3); see also Swan, 526 N.W.2d at 327.
Consequently, the district court “is not required to hold a party in contempt even
though the elements of contempt may exist.” Swan, 526 N.W.2d at 327.
Ultimately, the district court has “broad discretion and unless this discretion is
grossly abused, the court’s decision must stand.” Id. (cleaned up).
Here, even if we find Lee willfully disobeyed the court’s order in failing, once
again, to pay his court-ordered child-support, we cannot say the district court’s
decision otherwise was a gross abuse of its discretion. The court clearly
recognized Lee had not complied with the support order and gave him the
opportunity to become current, which he did. We do not find the court abused its
discretion when it did not hold Lee in contempt for his failure to pay his child support
as ordered.
E. Appellate Attorney Fees.
Finally, both parties have requested an award of appellate attorney fees.
Appellate attorney fees are not a matter of right but rest within our discretion. See
In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 255 (Iowa 2006). We consider “the
needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and the
relative merits of the appeal.” Based on the foregoing, we decline to award either
party appellate attorney fees.
19
IV. Conclusion.
Because it is necessary to use Lee’s earning capacity in calculating Amie’s
child support obligation under our child support guidelines to provide for the needs
of the parties’ minor children and do justice between the parties under the special
circumstances of this case, we modify the court’s order and remand for the district
court to recalculate Amie’s child support obligation. We affirm in all other respects.
We do not retain jurisdiction. Any costs are assessed equally to the parties.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.