In Re the Marriage of Sarah L. Pourroy and Jared M. Pourroy Upon the Petition of Sarah L. Pourroy, N/K/A Sarah L. Close, and Concerning Jared M. Pourroy
16-1391
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- Parties divorced by stipulated decree (Oct. 2011); two children placed with mother (Sarah Close); father (Jared Pourroy) had six overnights every 14 days and a substantially reduced child support obligation (~$218.75/mo) tied to shared expenses and visitation.
- Stipulation justified downward deviation because Jared provided health insurance, shared children’s expenses 50/50, and had significant overnight time; it also stated support would not be modifiable for five years.
- Sarah petitioned to modify in Jan. 2015, alleging Jared rarely exercised the midweek overnights, did not share expenses as agreed, and Jared’s income had increased.
- Trial (Mar. 2016) produced evidence Sarah stopped seeking shared-expense reimbursements and kept a five-year calendar showing the children often stayed at her home on Jared’s scheduled nights; Jared conceded he hadn’t transported children to school for years.
- District court (June 2016) removed certain summer overnights, ordered new visitation schedule, increased child support to $880/mo, and made the increase retroactive to May 2015; court also ordered Jared to resume morning responsibilities and awarded appellate fees to Sarah on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Close) | Defendant's Argument (Pourroy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive increase to May 2015 | Retroactivity appropriate because Jared breached stipulation conditions (visitation and shared expenses) and had higher income | Retroactivity improper because stipulation barred modification for five years; new support should start Oct 2016 | Court affirmed retroactivity to May 2015 — no abuse of discretion where stipulation’s justifications failed soon after decree (citing Thede) |
| Amount — health insurance deduction | Use actual incremental cost of employer plan covering children (employee+children minus single) | Court should use “family” coverage premium per rule language, not employee/children premium | Court used difference between Jared’s employee+children and single plan; approved as reflecting actual child premium cost |
| Amount — mother’s data-entry income | Sarah’s additional earnings are known and should be included in income for support calculation | Jared argued $4,600 (2015) should increase Sarah’s income included in calculation | Issue not preserved on appeal (not raised posttrial); court noted even if considered income was too speculative/irregular to include |
| Visitation modification (summer midweek overnights removed) | Order formalizes an informal summer schedule that had worked and is in children’s best interests; prevents awkward school-morning pickups | Jared argued prior informal reasons for change no longer apply because Sarah works limited hours in summer | Court affirmed modification as providing predictability and serving children’s best interests |
| Appellate attorney fees | Sarah requested fees; needs and ability-to-pay support award | Jared opposed | Court awarded Sarah $5,000 in appellate fees under Iowa Code §598.36 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Harris, 877 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa 2016) (de novo review of modification but deference to district fact findings)
- In re Marriage of Thede, 568 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (trial court has broad discretion to order retroactive child support)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issues must be raised and decided below to be preserved on appeal)
- In re Marriage of Maher, 596 N.W.2d 561 (Iowa 1999) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees in family-law matters)
- In re Marriage of Nelson, 570 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 1997) (only non-anomalous, non-speculative income should be included in support calculations)