In Re the Marriage of Jodi Lynn Erpelding and Timothy John Erpelding Upon the Petition of Jodi Lynn Erpelding, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee, and Concerning Timothy John Erpelding, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant.
16-1419
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Parties: Jodi and Tim Erpelding, married 1997–2015, two sons (born 2001, 2005); prenuptial agreement allocating property to the titled owner.
- Financials: Under the prenup Jodi received ~$810,000; Tim received substantially more (millions) including gifted/inherited farm assets; court attributed Tim gross income of $125,000 for support purposes.
- Procedural posture: Dissolution decree awarded joint legal custody, split physical care of the boys, $1,166/month traditional alimony to Jodi (modified on appeal), and child support from Tim; district court denied reimbursement alimony and refused to award Jodi trial attorney fees citing the prenup waiver.
- Child-care facts: Boys are separated by about 4.5 years in age and attend different schools; GAL recommended split physical care; district court found keeping them together would harm at least one child and ordered split physical care.
- Prenuptial-fee clause issue: Prenup barred awards of attorney fees/expenses upon dissolution; district court enforced the clause but asked for briefing on its enforceability as to child-related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Jodi) Argument | Respondent (Tim) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether split physical care is appropriate | Split care unnecessary; siblings should remain together; arrangement was causing travel/tiredness | Family circumstances justified split care given children’s preferences, ages, and activities | Affirmed split physical care—good and compelling reasons existed given divergent needs and likely harm to one child if kept together |
| Proper calculation of Tim’s child support | (N/A — appellate issue raised by Tim) Court should use its stated $125,000 income figure | Court mistakenly used $150,000 in guideline calc; remand to use $125,000 | Remanded to recalculate child support using $125,000 (scrivener’s error corrected) |
| Whether Jodi is entitled to reimbursement alimony for contributions that enabled Tim to acquire farm assets | Argued reimbursement alimony should extend beyond degree cases to compensate contributions that enabled asset accumulation | Reimbursement alimony is for short marriages devoted to educational advancement; long marriage with substantial assets disfavors reimbursement | Reimbursement alimony denied—Francis/Probasco framework limits reimbursement to degree/short-duration contexts; instead increased traditional alimony granted |
| Whether prenup’s waiver of attorney fees as to child-related issues violates public policy | Waiver void as to child-related issues because it would deprive a less-resourced parent of ability to litigate children’s best interests | Prenup terms are enforceable and legislature did not expressly prohibit fee waivers; GAL fee paid so no deprivation | Prenup fee-waiver unenforceable as to child-related issues; remanded for district court to award Jodi trial and appellate fees for child-related litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 1989) (establishes reimbursement-alimony framework focused on short marriages devoted to educational advancement)
- In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2004) (applies Francis to deny reimbursement alimony in long-term marriage with significant tangible assets)
- In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1992) (presumption against separating siblings; split care allowed only for good and compelling reasons)
- In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (consider interrelationship of premarital property division and spousal support; assess income potential of distributed assets)
- In re Marriage of Best, 901 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (holds fee-shifting ban in prenup unenforceable as to child-related issues as against public policy)
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (concludes waiver of attorney fees violates public policy where one spouse lacks resources to litigate parental-responsibility and support issues)
- In re Marriage of Burke, 980 P.2d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (refuses to enforce prenup attorney-fee waiver as to parenting-plan litigation; state interest in children’s welfare requires fee-award discretion)