In re the Marriage of Nelson, 20-1610

Background:

Mick and Julie Nelson divorced in 2005; decree ordered Mick to pay $873.14/month for three children and provided that support "shall be recalculated" as children became ineligible based on then-current Child Support Guidelines.
Children graduated in 2015, 2017, and 2020; Mick did not seek recalculation until 2020 and asserted the decree’s step-downs were "self-executing."
Julie counterclaimed that Mick was delinquent approximately $16,243.69 in child support and sought reimbursement for uncovered orthodontia for the youngest child.
At trial (both parties testified), the district court found Mick owed $16,243.69 in back support and $2,501.40 for uncovered orthodontic expenses, offset by $3,689.45 Julie owed Mick, for a net award of $15,055.64; the court denied contempt and ordered income withholding to recoup arrears.
Mick appealed, alleging (1) the step-down provision was self-executing and he overpaid; (2) error as to medical-support reimbursements; and (3) discovery violations. He also sought appellate fees; Julie requested fees in defense.

Issues:

Issue	Julie's Argument	Mick's Argument	Held
Whether decree's step-down language was self-executing so support automatically decreased when children aged out	Decree lacked specificity to be self-executing; recalculation required court or party action using then-current guidelines	Step-downs are self-executing under Iowa Code and controlling precedent; obligation ceased as each child became ineligible	Not self-executing. Recalculation required updating incomes and guidelines; Mick needed to seek modification and did not, so arrears properly calculated by court.
Burden of proof on arrears/overpayments when obligor claims he overpaid by informal self-help	Mick had burden once he sought modification; obligor cannot unilaterally alter payments without court approval	Mick argued Julie failed to prove arrears after accounting for supposed step-downs	Court (and appellate panel) placed burden on Mick to pursue formal modification; his informal reductions do not negate arrears.
Reimbursement for uncovered orthodontic expenses (timeliness and amount)	Julie provided timely notice and evidence; orthodontia was a covered, necessary expense under decree	Mick argued Julie failed to timely present receipts and court miscalculated amounts and timing	Affirmed. Julie gave timely notice; substantial evidence supported $2,501.40 reimbursement.
Discovery objections/preservations raised on appeal	Julie argued Mick waived objection by failing to preserve at trial	Mick asserted discovery violations warranted relief	Issue waived on appeal — preservation requirements not met; court reserved discovery rulings and Mick failed to object to trial exhibits.

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Pals, 714 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 2006) (de novo review of post-decree modification and rules on crediting overpayments against arrearages)
In re Bisenius, 573 N.W.2d 258 (Iowa 1998) (orders tied to eligibility conditions may be self-executing where decree fixes new obligation by condition)
In re Marriage of Mullen-Funderburk, 696 N.W.2d 607 (Iowa 2005) (modified support should be based on facts and law at time of determination when decree didn’t fix payment level)
In re Marriage of Belger, 654 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 2002) (principle that courts, not parties, should fix proper child-support amounts and rules on offsets)
In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (unpaid medical support collectible by same remedies as child support once dollar amount is established)
Scheffers v. Scheffers, 44 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 1950) (definition of "self-executing" as not requiring ministerial action)
UE Local 893/I.U.P. v. State, 928 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa 2019) (preservation of error requires more when preliminary rulings do not unequivocally decide an issue)
In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)
In re Marriage of Kupferschmidt, 705 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (aging-out of a child constitutes a substantial change in circumstances supporting modification)