In re Marriage of Brigman ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 22-0738
    Filed December 21, 2022
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CODY JOHN BRIGMAN
    AND JENNIFER LYNN BRIGMAN
    Upon the Petition of
    CODY JOHN BRIGMAN,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    And Concerning
    JENNIFER LYNN BRIGMAN n/k/a JENNIFER LYNN NEWTON,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.
    An ex-husband appeals a finding of default following a hearing on his former
    spouse’s application for rule to show cause. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    Deborah L. Johnson of Deborah L. Johnson Law Office, P.C., Altoona, for
    appellant.
    Ted Harrison Engel of Engel & Maharry, PLC, Clive, for appellee.
    Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.
    2
    CHICCHELLY, Judge.
    This appeal involves the interpretation of a divorce decree providing that
    holiday time takes precedence over the parties’ regular parenting schedule.
    Finding there was a legitimate dispute over the interpretation, the district court
    ruled Cody Brigman was in default of the decree but not in contempt. Upon our
    review, we agree with Cody’s interpretation, so we reverse and remand for entry
    of an order consistent with this opinion.
    The marriage of Cody Brigman and Jennifer Newton was dissolved by
    decree in November 2016. The parties have joint custody of their minor child, W.B.
    Jennifer was awarded physical care of W.B. subject to Cody’s reasonable and
    liberal parenting time. Among other times, Cody exercises parenting time every
    other weekend through 8:00 p.m. on Sundays. When it is not his weekend, Cody
    has parenting time on Thursdays through 8:00 p.m. The decree also incorporated
    an alternating holiday schedule and states explicitly that “holiday parenting
    time . . . shall take precedence over the regular parenting schedule.”
    In 2021, the holiday schedule dictated Cody should exercise parenting time
    from the Friday after Thanksgiving at 5:00 p.m. through Sunday at 5:00 p.m.
    Because this weekend was also Cody’s regularly-scheduled parenting time, Cody
    did not return W.B. until 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. Similarly, at the 2021 Christmas
    holiday, Cody was scheduled for holiday time from noon on December 25 until
    5:00 p.m. on December 26. Because it was also Cody’s regularly-scheduled
    weekend, he returned W.B. at 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, December 26.
    In January 2022, Jennifer filed an application for rule to show cause on
    account of the two allegedly late exchanges. The district court found Cody not
    3
    guilty of contempt on both counts because he did not knowingly, intentionally, and
    willfully violate the court’s order with respect to the holiday visitation schedule. The
    court found Cody in default of the divorce decree for violating its provision on
    holiday visitation.   Cody timely appealed this ruling, challenging the court’s
    interpretation and impact it will have on future exchanges.
    We review legal conclusions in contempt actions for correction of errors at
    law. In re Marriage of Swan, 
    526 N.W.2d 320
    , 327 (Iowa 1995). “In construing a
    dissolution decree, we give force and effect to every word, if possible, in order to
    give the decree a consistent, effective and reasonable meaning in its entirety.” In
    re Marriage of Brown, 
    776 N.W.2d 644
    , 650 (Iowa 2009). Here, we find force and
    effect was not afforded to the key term “precedence,” which the dictionary defines
    as “a priority of importance.”1 Such priority necessarily implies a conflict or choice
    between at least two alternatives. However, no conflict existed here. The holiday
    schedule takes precedence during the times listed in the holiday schedule.
    Outside of those times, the regular parenting schedule applies. See In re Marriage
    of Mennen, No. 09–1821, 
    2010 WL 2384865
    , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 16, 2010)
    (acknowledging a mother disobeyed a visitation order by taking the child at the
    start of the father’s regularly-scheduled weekend when her holiday visitation was
    not to occur until Sunday). In light of this clarification, we find Cody was not in
    default of the divorce decree with respect to either of the incidents in question. We
    reverse and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    1 Precedence, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
    precedence (last visited Nov. 28, 2022).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-0738

Filed Date: 12/21/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2022