Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 48 / 05-0507 Filed May 26, 2006 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BONNIE M. PALS AND JAMES J. PALS Upon the Petition of BONNIE M. PALS, Appellee, And Concerning JAMES J. PALS, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________________ On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, John S. Mackey, Judge.

Appeal from court's refusal to modify dissolution decree to terminate child-support obligation and to establish postsecondary education subsidy for parties' adult son. DECISION OF COURT OF

APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Gary L. Berkland of Houser & Berkland, Belmond, for appellant.

Christopher C. Foy of Leslie, Collins & Foy, Waverly, for appellee.

2 CADY, Justice. In this appeal from a decision by the district court on a petition for modification of a decree for dissolution of marriage, the noncustodial parent primarily challenges the denial of his request to terminate his child-support obligation and to establish a postsecondary education subsidy for his adult son. The district court and the court of appeals both found he failed to show a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification. We granted further review. We vacate the

decision of the court of appeals, affirm the decision of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Bonnie and James Pals were married on August 14, 1982. They had two children. Nicole was born June 19, 1979 and was adopted by James during the marriage. Joel was born August 30, 1985. Bonnie and James were divorced on April 1, 1991. The parties

stipulated that Bonnie would have primary physical care of the children, and James would have reasonable visitation with them. The court

ordered James to pay child support for both children pursuant to the child support guidelines in the amount of $679 per month. Support was to continue in that amount until Nicole turned eighteen or finished high school, whichever occurred later; or married, died, or became selfsupporting. Additionally, the decree contained a separate provision that provided: In the event that the first child of the parties shall continue with any post-secondary education, the required level of support shall continue at the rate of $679 per month until such time as the first child of the parties either completes the post-secondary education or attains the age of 22, whichever shall first occur, pursuant to section 598.1(2), The Code.

3 Once the obligation to support Nicole terminated, the monthly

support obligation for Joel was reduced to $495. The decree contained the same terms for termination of Joel's support as for Nicole, and also included the same provision to extend the support obligation in the event Joel pursued a postsecondary education. Nicole turned eighteen in 1997 and began college. Pursuant to the decree, James continued to pay $679 in child support. Nicole married in October 2000, an event under the decree that terminated James's obligation to provide support for her and reduced his support obligation to Joel to $495 a month. Notwithstanding, James continued to pay $679 in child support each month until May 2004, when he filed a petition to modify the decree. Joel graduated from high school in 2004, and began college at Northern Iowa Area Community College in the fall of that year. He

moved from Bonnie's house into a rental house he shared with three roommates. During Joel's first year of college, James paid the cost of tuition and books not covered by scholarships and grants--$1,118.50. In the modification proceeding, James alleged the following changes since the time of the decree constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification: (1) he retired as a teacher and

began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's income increased. James asked the

court to modify the decree to enter a QDRO dividing his IPERS benefits according to the provisions of the original decree, terminate his child-

4 support obligation, and order a postsecondary for Joel. James also sought attorney fees. The district court entered its judgment on March 1, 2005. The education subsidy

court concluded James failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances to justify the termination of his child-support obligation or the imposition of a postsecondary education subsidy. However, the court found James overpaid $7912 in child support under the original decree by continuing to pay $679 per month after Nicole's marriage in October 2000. Accordingly, the court offset his child-support arrearage that had accumulated when he stopped paying support after he filed the modification petition in May 2004, and gave James "a net credit of $3457 yet to be applied to the ongoing post-secondary support obligation owed to Bonnie." Additionally, the court entered a QDRO implementing the

original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits and ordered each party to be responsible for his or her own attorney fees and one half of the court costs. James appealed, and Bonnie cross-appealed. James claimed the district court erred in failing to replace the child-support obligation under the decree with an educational subsidy, effective August 2004. He also asked that he be reimbursed for any child-support payments made during the pendency of the appeal not paid over to Joel. Bonnie claimed the district court erred in granting James a credit for the support overpayment. She further claimed the QDRO entered by the district

court did not accurately reflect the IPERS division in the original decree. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the portion of the district court judgment that gave James a credit for the overpaid support, but otherwise affirmed the district court decision. James applied for further review, which we granted.

5 II. Standard of Review

"A proceeding to modify or implement a marriage dissolution decree subsequent to its entry is triable in equity and reviewed de novo on appeal." In re Marriage of Mullen-Funderburk, 696 N.W.2d 607,

609 (Iowa 2005) (citations omitted). III. Modification of Support for College-Aged Child

Dissolution decrees may be modified upon a substantial change in circumstances. Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BONNIE M. PALS AND JAMES J. PALS Upon the Petition of BON

Iowa Law