Jodi Lynn Erpelding v. Timothy John Erpelding
917 N.W.2d 235
| Iowa | 2018Background
- Tim and Jodi Erpelding signed a premarital agreement five days before their 1997 marriage that waived rights to property, "attorney fees and expenses" upon filing for dissolution.
- After 18 years they divorced; litigation addressed custody of two minor children (split physical care), child support, spousal support, property division, and attorney fees.
- The district court enforced the premarital fee-waiver and denied Jodi’s request for attorney fees, concluding the waiver was valid and no public policy required ignoring its plain language.
- The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed as to child-related attorney fees, holding the waiver void as to child issues because it discouraged parents from litigating in children’s best interests.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review limited to whether premarital waivers of attorney fees are enforceable for child custody, child support, and spousal support issues; it affirmed the court of appeals on child-related fees, vacated part of its spousal-support analysis, and remanded for calculation of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are premarital waivers of attorney fees unenforceable as to child support and spousal support? | Jodi: waivers are unenforceable because IUPAA §596.5(2) prohibits adversely affecting child or spousal support; without fee recovery a dependent spouse/parent cannot effectively pursue support. | Tim: waiver only limits the right to seek/recover fees, not the underlying right to support; it does not "adversely affect" support under §596.5(2). | Court: §596.5(2) ambiguous; purposive construction protects vulnerable parties — a fee-waiver relating to child or spousal support "adversely affects" the right to support and is unenforceable. |
| Are premarital waivers of attorney fees unenforceable as to child custody (fee‑shifting bars)? | Jodi: fee-shifting bars impair a financially disadvantaged parent’s ability to litigate custody/support, harming children and the court’s best-interest inquiry. | Tim: enforcement of the agreement should be honored; fee waiver does not directly bind custody which courts must decide. | Court: fee-shifting bars as to custody implicate public policy under §596.5(1)(g) and are void — Iowa public policy prohibits fee-waivers that prevent effective litigation of child-custody issues. |
| Does the IUPAA's structure inform interpretation of fee waivers? | Jodi: IUPAA is more protective than the UPAA and shows legislative intent to protect children's and dependent spouses’ rights. | Tim: (implicit) enforce parties’ contractual autonomy as written. | Court: comparison with UPAA and legislative history supports a protective reading of IUPAA; it disfavors waiving support-related protections. |
| Should appointment of GAL or child attorney negate fee-recovery claims by a parent? | Tim: appointment of guardian ad litem or child’s attorney protects child’s interests, so parent’s fee recovery is unnecessary. | Jodi: no guarantee a GAL will be appointed; litigation may never proceed without parent's counsel; children’s counsel rely heavily on parents’ counsel. | Court: permissive GAL statute and practical realities mean GAL appointment does not eliminate the need for parent counsel; fee-waivers remain unenforceable for child issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Gudenkauf, 204 N.W.2d 586 (Iowa 1973) (common-law rule that antenuptial waivers of alimony are void as against public policy)
- Norris v. Norris, 174 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1970) (waiver of alimony may force dependent spouse to endure conduct to avoid losing support)
- In re Marriage of Shanks, 758 N.W.2d 506 (Iowa 2008) (IUPAA governs premarital agreements in Iowa; use UPAA commentary when helpful)
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (fee‑shifting bars can impair a lesser‑earning spouse’s ability to litigate child‑related issues and thus violate public policy)
- In re Marriage of Joseph, 266 Cal. Rptr. 548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (marital agreement void where it denies attorney fees needed to institute or defend child‑related actions)
- In re Marriage of Burke, 980 P.2d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (state’s interest in children's welfare requires courts retain discretion to award fees so financially disadvantaged parents have a day in court)