In Re the Marriage of Natalie Rae Hammer and Christopher Michael Holland Upon the Petition of Natalie Rae Hammer, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Christopher Michael Holland, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee.
16-1947
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- Parties divorced by stipulated decree in April 2015; four minor children; joint custody with Natalie having slightly more parenting time. Child support fixed at $2,200/month paid by Christopher (Chris).
- Stipulation allocated uncovered medical expenses by net income; Chris responsible for children’s health insurance and 85% of uncovered medicals.
- Decree included substantial structured property settlements: $350,000 lump-sum, $2,500/month for 120 months, and $75,000/year as a 12‑year payment characterized as salary; no spousal support ordered.
- At dissolution Natalie’s imputed income was $24,000; she later earned ≈$29,000. Chris’s reported income rose from ~$68,775 (2014) to evidence of much larger business profitability and ~ $150,000+ annual gross in filings before the modification hearing.
- Less than a year after the decree, Chris petitioned to modify child support claiming an involuntary income reduction; the modification court found no involuntary reduction and denied modification.
- Natalie sought trial attorney fees (denied); on cross-appeal she requested appellate fees and was awarded $5,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chris) | Defendant's Argument (Natalie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modification court could treat the stipulated child support amount as the baseline for modification despite lack of detailed findings in the decree | The decree failed to state how the agreed child support deviated from the guidelines, so the court should apply current guideline calculations de novo | The stipulation incorporated guideline worksheets and merged into the decree; the stipulated amount is the judgment and proper starting point for modifications | The court may use the stipulated child support amount as the starting point because the stipulation referenced guideline worksheets and merged into the decree |
| Whether Chris demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances to modify child support | Chris claimed an involuntary reduction in personal income meriting modification | Natalie argued Chris’s income actually increased; the property‑settlement payments to her were structured and not ordinary income for support calculations | No substantial change: evidence showed Chris’s income did not decrease and the $75,000 payment was a structured property settlement, so modification denied |
| Whether the $75,000 annual property‑settlement payment to Natalie should be treated as income for child support | Chris argued the $75,000 should count as Natalie’s income, increasing her income for support calculations | Natalie argued the payment was a structured property settlement, not wage/income for child support, and had tax consequences contemplated by the parties | Court held the $75,000 was part of structured property settlement and not treated as traditional income for child support calculations |
| Whether Natalie was entitled to trial and appellate attorney fees | (N/A) | Natalie asked for trial fees (based on need) and appellate fees to defend district court on appeal | Trial fees denied (no abuse of discretion in district court); appellate fees of $5,000 awarded based on needs, ability to pay, and obligation to defend the decree on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 1995) (standard of review for modification and equity in decrees)
- In re Marriage of Handeland, 564 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (stipulation merges into decree and court must explain guideline deviations)
- In re Marriage of Maher, 596 N.W.2d 561 (Iowa 1999) (elements required to show substantial change of circumstances for modification)
- In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2005) (trial court’s attorney‑fee award reviewed for abuse of discretion; consider needs and ability to pay)
- In re Marriage of Applegate, 567 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)