In re the Marriage of Mahoney, 21-0958

Background

Kyle and Tamara Mahoney married in 2010 and filed for dissolution in 2021; they have two minor children and disputed temporary custody and support.
Parties submitted child-support worksheets: Tamara reported annual income about $112,500; Kyle (sole owner of MIC Inc.) reported about $110,391 based on distributions, ordinary business income, and rental payments.
Tamara alleged Kyle understated income and pointed to MIC Inc. payments covering many personal expenses, calculating Kyle’s income near $207,876.
The district court found Kyle’s annual income to be $208,000, awarded child support consistent with the guidelines (~$1,956.67/month), and denied Kyle’s motion for written findings on how income was calculated.
Kyle appealed, arguing the court adopted Tamara’s calculations without written findings and improperly converted corporate-paid personal expenses into income; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
The appellate court directed the district court on remand to make written findings addressing whether application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under Iowa Ct. R. 9.11; Tamara’s request for $3,000 appellate fees was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper calculation of Kyle’s annual income for child support	Kyle: court adopted Tamara’s inflated calculations without written findings and improperly added corporate‑paid personal expenses dollar‑for‑dollar to his income	Tamara: Kyle grossly understated income; corporate payments show personal benefit and support a higher income finding	Reversed and remanded: district court erred in its income calculation approach and must reconsider with written findings whether deviation from guidelines is justified
Requirement for written findings when deviating from guidelines	Kyle: court failed to make a written determination explaining any deviation from the child‑support guidelines	Tamara: court found her evidence credible and acted on that credibility at the hearing	Court ordered remand for written findings addressing whether the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate under Iowa Ct. R. 9.11
Treatment of corporate‑paid personal expenses in support calculation	Kyle: corporate payments should not be automatically added to gross income; they may justify a discretionary deviation only after analysis	Tamara: those payments demonstrate increased personal benefit and justify treating more cash flow as income	Court: corporate‑paid personal expenses should not be automatically added dollar‑for‑dollar; they may justify departing from guideline amounts, so district court must analyze and make findings on remand
Appellate attorney fees request	Tamara requested $3,000 in appellate fees	Kyle opposed	Denied: appellate court exercised discretion considering need, ability to pay, and whether appellee was required to defend the decision; costs taxed equally

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d 48 (Iowa 1999) (net monthly income must be determined from the most reliable evidence presented)
In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 1991) (court must consider all circumstances relating to a parent's income)
In re Marriage of Wade, 780 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (corporate‑paid personal expenses may support a discretionary deviation but should not be automatically added dollar‑for‑dollar)
In re Marriage of Huisman, 532 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (employment benefits are not automatically added to income; their value may justify deviation)
In re Marriage of Wiedemann, 402 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 1987) (corporate owners often cover personal living expenses through the corporation, affecting support calculations)
In re Marriage of Murray, 213 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1973) (a corporation is a distinct legal entity even when owned by one person)
In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (dissolution appeals are reviewed de novo)
In re Marriage of Hilmo, 623 N.W.2d 809 (Iowa 2001) (income for support is not limited to amounts reportable to the IRS)
In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (factors governing appellate attorney‑fee awards: need, ability to pay, and whether party had to defend the district court decision)