In Re the Marriage of Tamara K. Anderson-Gerels and Jay D. Gerels Upon the Petition of Tamara K. Anderson-Gerels, Rodney R. Eaton, Administrator of the Tamara K. Eaton (f/K/A Tamara K. Anderson-Gerels) Estate, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Jay D. Gerels, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee.
16-0820
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- Jay and Tamara were divorced; Tamara died during the proceedings and her estate (administrator Rodney Eaton) continued the action seeking enforcement/modification of obligations for their child.
- District court ordered each parent to pay a postsecondary education subsidy of $250/month for the child; Jay appealed and Tamara (through estate) cross-appealed regarding attorney fees and a lien on Jay’s retirement account.
- Iowa law (Iowa Code § 598.21F) permits a postsecondary education subsidy where "good cause" is shown and requires calculating costs based on in-state public undergraduate expenses, subtracting the child’s expected contribution, and apportioning the remainder to the parents.
- Jay, on disability, has monthly income of $1712.51 (take-home $1441.16), monthly expenses of $2875, assets of ~$179,795, liabilities of ~$85,150, and a net worth of ~$94,645; disability likely prevents future employment.
- Jay conceded the child was eligible for a subsidy but argued his financial situation and unknown financial aid made awarding one improper; the district court nevertheless imposed a modest subsidy and denied Tamara’s requests for a lien on Jay’s retirement and for attorney fees.
- The court allows Jay to seek modification if the child’s financial-aid information changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "good cause" exists to order postsecondary subsidy | Tamara: good cause exists; child eligible and parents should contribute | Jay: his limited income and financial hardship make subsidy inappropriate | Court: good cause exists; modest subsidy warranted despite Jay's limited means |
| Appropriate amount and payment timing of subsidy | Tamara: sought meaningful contribution and security (lien) | Jay: cannot afford large payments; unknown scholarships/loans reduce need | Court: awarded Jay $1,000/year ($500 at start of each semester); allowed future modification if aid info changes |
| Whether a lien on Jay’s retirement account should secure the obligation | Tamara: lien necessary to secure payment | Jay: likely opposed (argued financial hardship) | Court: affirmed district court’s denial of lien on retirement account |
| Whether attorney fees should be awarded to Tamara/estate | Tamara: requested attorney fees for enforcement/appellate work | Jay: opposed; court has discretion | Court: denied trial and appellate attorney fees; no abuse of discretion found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Longman, 619 N.W.2d 369 (Iowa 2000) (parent’s limited cash flow can make college subsidy impracticable)
- In re Marriage of Neff, 675 N.W.2d 573 (Iowa 2004) (modest postsecondary subsidy can be required even from parents with limited means)
- In re Marriage of Vaughan, 812 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 2012) (postsecondary subsidy must not cause undue financial hardship)
- In re Marriage of Mihm, 842 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014) (standard of de novo appellate review of modification decisions)