On аppeal Jane challenges the district court’s failure to award her a greater increase in child support, an increase in alimony, and a greatеr portion of her attorney fees.
The marriage of Elmer Schettler and Jane Schettler was dissolved pursuant to a stipulated decree on April 12, 1984. The pаrties were married for seventeen years. The parties were given joint custody of their three children, Steven, Renee, and Sara, with physical care to Jane. Elmer agreed to pay child support of $163.75 per month per child. Elmer also agreed to pay *688 Jane, for her support and maintenance, the principal sum of $144,000 in monthly installments of $1,200 for ten years. The substantial assets of the parties were divided and Elmer agreed to purchase Jane's share of stock in Schettlеr Seed Farm, Inc. An additional $250,000 property settlement was also payable to Jane over a fifteen year period.
Since the decree, Jane has moved to Arizona. Steven, twenty, now attends a local community college and Renee, sixteen, attends a private high school. The youngest child, Sara, attends public grade school. Jane is still unemployed and her monthly expenses have not significantly increased. However, Elmer’s seed corporation dramatically increased in value following the divorce. As a result, Elmer’s income and net worth have increased. Elmer also has remarried.
In March 1988, Jane filed an apрlication to modify the decree of dissolution of marriage. Jane sought an increase in child support and alimony as well as attorney fees for pursuing this action. Following a hearing, the district court entered its order and decree regarding modification. As a result, Elmer was ordered to pay all college tuition, roоm and board expenses for the children, as well as the high school tuition for Renee. Elmer was also required to pay all expenses for visitation as well as $750 of Jane’s attorney fees. Jane appeals. We affirm.
I. Scope of Review. Our scope of review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. Although not bound by the trial court’s determination of factual findings, we will give considerable weight to them, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(7).
II. Default. We first address a рreliminary issue. After Jane filed her application to modify decree of dissolution of marriage, Elmer filed an appearance but had not filed an answer to Jane’s application. Before the hearing on the application, Jane’s attorney moved for default against Elmer. He asked for the trial cоurt to order a substantial change of circumstances has been proven and for the trial to proceed only on the issues of amount of increases fоr child support and alimony.
During the one year span of time from Jane's application being filed and hearing thereon, the parties pursued discovery by way of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, depositions, and filing of financial affidavits. The trial judge denied the application for defendant аnd noted the law does not favor “form over substance” and “it should come as no surprise to anyone in the courtroom that all issues contemplated by the modification are contested.”
Jane cites Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 230 which provides a party is in default when the party fails to serve, and within a reasonаble time thereafter, file a motion or answer as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 53 or 54, or has appeared thereafter serving a motion or plеading as stated in Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 87. Jane claims the court has no power to treat an appearance as sufficient to delay or рrevent a default, per Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 87.
The principles governing default matters are:
Despite the language of rules 230-32 that might be read to require the entry of a default under certain conditions, our cases interpreting those rules have not made such entry mandatory. We have consistently held that the question of allowing a default is largely within the discretion of the trial court_ The pol-
icy of the law is to allow trial of actions on their merits.
* * * * * *
We have also held that proceeding with a case without taking timely advantage of the default also constitutes a waiver of the right to a default.
Johnson v. Gib’s Western Kitchen, Inc.,
Here, the parties diligently prepared for trial upon Jane’s application fоr modification. The issues were contested. Jane waited a year before applying to the court *689 for a default against Elmer. Upon consideration of all these matters and applicable principles, we determine the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for default. We also dеtermine Jane waived her right to a default because of the length of time elapsed from the date of Elmer’s appearance and Jane’s application for default. We affirm the trial court on this issue.
III. Modification of Alimony. Circumstances which have changed so as to warrant a modification of alimony must be those which were not in contemplation of the trial court when the original decree was entered.
Thayer v. Thayer,
The trial court found Elmer’s income had increased after the divorce but the increase could not be viewed as unexpected. In 1984 Elmer owned and operated a successful company with a book value in excess of $700,000 and was paid a salary of $80,000 with a $50,000 bonus.
After the dissolution Schettler Seed Farm, Inc. experienced substantial growth and in 1988 became marketablе at a price in excess of book value. In 1988, it was sold for nearly $2,500,000. The parties do not dispute the accuracy of the book value of Schettler Seеd Farm, Inc. in 1984 and later years. This book value was presented to the court in the original dissolution.
Jane has failed to show her need for financial support or аlimony has materially changed. The evidence shows Jane has loaned or given in excess of $20,000 to her relatives. The trial judge’s order for Elmer to pay all of their children school and college tuition and costs of room and board will lessen Jane’s financial demands. The trial judge found Jane’s needs are unchanged and hеr financial support and income adequately meet her needs. We agree and affirm the trial court on this issue.
We find Jane has failed in her burden of proof tо show the parties’ circumstances today are not as they would have been envisioned by the trial court when the dissolution was granted.
Skiles,
IV. Child Support. It is well established bоth parents have a legal obligation to support their children. Iowa Code § 598.21(4);
In re Marriage of Fleener,
We affirm the trial court’s additional change for payment by Elmer of the children’s school and college сosts and their visitation transportation costs.
V. Attorney Fees. Iowa trial courts have considerable discretion in awarding attorney fees.
In re Marriage of Giles,
We affirm the trial court’s award of $750 to Jane to apply upon her trial attorney fees.
VI. Attorney Fees. An award of attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court’s discretion and the parties’ financial positions.
In re Marriage of Kern,
*690 Each party shall pay his or her own attorney fees on appeal. Costs of appeal are taxed to Jane.
AFFIRMED.