Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-538 / 06-0966 Filed September 19, 2007

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KELLEY LYNN KRAVA AND THOMAS JAMES KRAVA Upon the Petition of KELLEY LYNN KRAVA, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning TOMAS JAMES KRAVA, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Darrell Goodhue, Judge.

Respondent appeals from district court order modifying a dissolution decree. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

James R. Cook, of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Boles, Gribble & Cook, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant. Kerri Keyte of the Marks Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

2 MAHAN, P.J. Thomas James Krava appeals from the district court's findings, conclusions, and order regarding his application to modify a dissolution decree. I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings Thomas and Kelley Lynn Krava were married in 1983. The couple had two children during the marriage: Scott, born in 1985, and Zachary, born in 1988. The marriage was dissolved in 1989 by judicial decree. Pursuant to this decree, Kelley was granted primary physical care of both children, and Thomas was ordered to pay $350 per month for child support. In November 2001, at the request of the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU), the court entered an order increasing the monthly child support to $479 per month. This order also indicated his obligation would reduce to $328 per month when only one child remained eligible for support. The eldest son, Scott, turned eighteen in April 2003 and graduated from high school one month later. That same month, the CSRU entered an order reducing Thomas's support obligation to $328 per month. In August 2003 Scott began attending college as a full-time student at Iowa State University. Scott financed part of his college expenses through

federal loans, and Kelley financed a significant portion of Scott's expenses through separate loans. On March 22, 2005, the CSRU issued an order increasing Thomas's child support obligation. He was ordered to pay $479 per month plus an additional $95.80 per month towards the "delinquency" created during the past two years when he had only paid $328 per month, as previously directed by the CSRU.

3 Thomas immediately filed an application to modify the dissolution decree. This application asked the court to void the March 22, 2005 order because "the order reinstating the child support and creating a deficiency [was] invalid and unlawful." The application went on to ask the court to require [Kelley] to provide all necessary information concerning the costs and financial aid for the minor child; and to thereafter make a determination as to the amount to be paid by each parent for the higher education assistance to the minor child; and for such other, further relief as the Court deems equitable in the premises. The CSRU filed another order on May 12, 2005, reducing Thomas's monthly child support obligation to $328 per month and requiring that he pay an additional $65.60 per month "for delinquent support until the total delinquency [of $3445.77] has been paid." The CSRU filed another order on June 7, 2005, reaffirming the $328 per month child support obligation, reaffirming a total delinquency of $3378.63, and cancelling the $65.60 payment for delinquent support. A hearing on Thomas's motion was delayed for many months due to a change in counsel and scheduling conflicts. The case came to trial on

February 16, 2006. On this date, the parties agreed to submit the case to the court based only on the court file, a statement of stipulated facts, and oral argument from both parties. By this time, the youngest child, Zachary, was

scheduled to graduate from high school in May and planned to attend classes at Des Moines Area Community College as a full-time student later that summer. The district court entered its "Findings, Conclusions, and Order" on Thomas's application to modify on April 24, 2006. The court found the

dissolution decree was "self-executing" and the $429 payment should have been

4 continued until the decree was modified. Accordingly, the court upheld the

delinquency for the child support that had not been paid for Scott between the months of May 2003 and June 2005. The court terminated child support

payments for Scott as of June 2005 and determined that all child support payments would end as of June 1, 2006, when Zachary graduated from high school. The court went on to assign the postsecondary education subsidy between both parties for the years since the application to modify had been filed. The court ordered each party to pay $5293.34 for Scott's postsecondary education expenses for the 2005-06 school year and $5531.67 for the 2006-07 school year. The court also ordered each party to pay $2943.66 for Zachary's postsecondary education expenses for the 2006-07 school year and one-third of the total cost of postsecondary education for each subsequent year so long as Zachary made progress towards a degree. On appeal, Thomas appears to argue that he should not be responsible for any child support for Scott once Scott graduated from high school. He also claims the court erred when it determined the amount of postsecondary education subsidy for each parent. Specifically, he contends the reasonable

costs for necessary postsecondary education expenses do not include medical/dental expenses, personal expenses, and transportation expenses. He also claims Scott's personal contribution to his own postsecondary education expenses includes all the funds available through his financial aid package. This financial aid package included a federal loan in Scott's name and a large separate loan in Kelley's name. By Thomas's calculation, the sum total of these

5 two loans exceeded Scott's postsecondary expenses, therefore there is nothing left for Thomas to pay. Kelley has not resisted the relief sought by Thomas either by brief or argument. 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). III. Merits The original dissolution decree set forth that Thomas was to pay Kelley $350 per month for "child support" until such time as the "last minor child of the parties shall have attained the age of eighteen (18) years, marries, becomes emancipated, whichever should have occurred first, or as may be continued by further provision herein." When the decree was issued in 1989, the Iowa Code defined "support" in the following manner: "Support" or "support payments" means an amount which the court may require either of the parties to pay under a temporary order or a final judgment or decree, and may include alimony, child support, maintenance, and any other term used to describe these obligations. The obligations may include support for a child who is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two years who is regularly attending an accredited school in pursuance of a course of study leading to a high school diploma or its equivalent, or regularly attending a course of vocational-technical training either as a part of a regular school program or under special arrangements adapted to the individual person's needs; or is, in good faith, a full-time student in a college . . . and the next regular term has not yet begun; or a child of any age who is dependent on the parties to the dissolution proceedings because of physical or mental disability.

6 Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KELLEY LYNN KRAVA AND THOMAS JAMES KRAVA Upon the Petition

Iowa Law