In Re the Marriage of Melissa Jo Mihm and Scott Anthony Mihm, Upon the Petition of Melissa Jo Mihm N/K/A Melissa Jo Weber
842 N.W.2d 378
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Scott and Melissa Mihm divorced in 2009 by decree incorporating a stipulation: Scott paid $1500/month child support (below guideline amount) and $500/month spousal support for 60 months; Melissa received a $500,000 property settlement.
- The decree did not contain a written finding explaining any deviation from Iowa child support guidelines.
- Scott later sought modification; Melissa counterclaimed to increase child support after (a) one child moved to Scott’s physical custody and (b) Melissa remarried, ending her spousal support.
- At trial the court found Melissa’s remarriage warranted termination of spousal support and denied her request to modify child support, concluding no substantial change in circumstances and that parties’ below-guideline stipulation should be respected.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and evaluated whether (1) the original below-guideline award was a proper baseline and (2) whether changed circumstances now justified modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Melissa) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of child support | The transfer of one child to Scott, Melissa’s remarriage and loss of $500/month alimony, and Scott’s income increase justify recalculation | The parties knowingly agreed to below-guideline support; decree is final and changes were contemplated or within parties’ agreement | Yes. Court finds substantial change (custody change + loss of alimony + significant increase in Scott’s income) and remands to recalculate child support |
| Whether the original child-support stipulation (below guidelines) can bar later modification absent rare circumstances | Stipulated below-guideline amount did not reflect children’s best interests and lacked required judicial findings; therefore it should not preclude modification | Enforcing the stipulation respects parties’ final agreement; modification should be limited | Decree was not a proper baseline because it lacked the statutory written findings explaining deviation; stipulation does not bar modification |
| Whether the court properly terminated spousal support after remarriage | Melissa argued for continuation based on need | Scott argued remarriage terminates spousal support absent extraordinary circumstances | Court affirmed termination: Melissa failed to prove extraordinary circumstances to continue alimony |
| Whether the court of appeals correctly denied Scott’s request for appellate attorney fees | Scott sought fees on appeal | Melissa opposed | Court of appeals’ denial of fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael v. 839 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 2013) (standards for modification reviewed de novo and principles for change-in-circumstances)
- McDermott v. 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (weight given to district court findings and purpose of guidelines)
- Vetternack v. 334 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1983) (change must not have been within court’s contemplation at decree)
- Walters v. 575 N.W.2d 739 (Iowa 1998) (continued enforcement must not result in injustice)
- Rietz v. 585 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1998) (burden to prove change by preponderance)
- Knickerbocker v. 601 N.W.2d 48 (Iowa 1999) (averaging income; treatment of fluctuating income)
- Guyer v. 522 N.W.2d 818 (Iowa 1994) (significant income increase may be outside court’s contemplation)
- Lawson v. 409 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1987) (stipulated child support becomes final judgment when merged in decree)
- Nielsen v. 521 N.W.2d 735 (Iowa 1994) (court must make written findings to deviate from guidelines)
- Nelson v. 570 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 1997) (deviation without explanation undermines basis for future modification)