*1 injury act, proximate negligent of an such cause which follows fairly negligence if it can be said that of such absence injury damage complained or of would not occurred.”
Finding error, no reversible the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s proper motion a new trial was the judgment must be affirmed. —Affirmed.
All Justices concur. Lois Jean Neiderhiser, appellee, v. Wilbert Vernon Neider
hiser, appellant.
No. 50798. (Reported 245) N.W.2d
January 15, 1963. Bleakley Vietor, David G. D. both of Cedar and Harold appellant. Rapids, for
George Becker, F. Claassen, Rapids, C. and Carl of Cedar of Mount Vernon, appellee. *3 in J.—This is a divorce decided favor of action
Peterson, plaintiff. trial, The issues are: 1st: Defendant asks for new alleges refusing and in trial court its discretion abused attorney, continue the case when defendant’s with the court’s approval, withdrew from in middle trial. the ease 2d: The rendering trial court error in committed a decree unfair support money defendant four children parties.
On these issues appealed. defendant I. January Plaintiff and were married 1951. 28 Plaintiff was They and defendant four was 39. children ranged ages who in from 6 at to 11 time of trial December 1961.
Defendant was a farmer. He and lived on rented a farm of 120 Rapids. acres southeast of In Cedar connection with the farm work exceedingly dilatory. defendant was habitually He to get refused out of bed in the morning until 10:30 11or o’clock. It became necessary for plaintiff to do all the chores morning. In addition regularly thereto she worked in the field. She continuously used a tractor and did much of the plowing, planting crops. and harvesting At one when she was .time pregnant six months one necessary with of the children it became to plant her beans. defendant’s cruel was part the situation
Another difficult temper and uncontrollable had an inhuman He treatment. knocked He once plaintiff. on than one occasion struck more legs hard face, so arms and pounded her ground and her to the After long of time. period for a she was black and blue she could danger and her life was she realized that left him she with remaining take chance of Eapids near Cedar parents’ her in a little town moved to home Ely into which Ely. small house Later she rented a called moved her she children. only reached married.' She she only
Plaintiff was when an extensive educa- school, did not secure grade eleventh Eapids job Mercy Hospital in Cedar menial found a at tion. She elderly take lady to wages per month. She hired an necessary that was of the children worked. It care while she morning evening and every back miles she drive and forth a few perform her work. surly, and mean disposition quarrelsome Defendant’s was- personal contacts, in all as in the home. other as well men- thought denoted a serious Plaintiff defendant’s actions against filed information psychological She an tal condition. he Insanity hearing, After him before the Commission. information discharged. Later filed an his brother and sister Hospital for against him was committed to State discharged as normal. days. He period of about was then attorneys two history general Because of this and his actions *4 Department in the to the Medical case decided he should be sent prior trial of University of Iowa for an examination making stipulated doctors the examina- the case. was that- the report copy a to the court with a tion should make direct report mentally psycho- attorney. to each stated was litigation to defend him- logically able continue with the in court. self plaintiff any very
It was difficult for to secure assistance support money., from Defendant also defendant as to refused plaintiff any goods let of the household for herself and the children.
795 goods household between Judge divided hearing, On Defendant support money. parties payment and ordered of property personal public of all announced he would hold sale finally The court dilatory proceeding. on the farm. He appointed property. receiver to sell the departed recently
The father defendant had and mother of life, children, one other consisting their son, and farm. defendant did daughter, one inherited the Since purchase again, it was rented not their and did not rent it share necessary to another for defendant tenant and it became period approx- During time, running vacate. over a all this imately years, two continuous resistance to the defendant made attorney, trial of the one Mr. divorce case. He had retained Thomas Woods, L. who defendant would not withdrew because cooperate. Randall, John an Defendant then retained Mr. attor- ney Rapids represented of the Cedar Bar who him for several months.
This is a brief facts, background statement of the salient as a for consideration of the two issues in the case.
It has
recognized
only
been
in this jurisdiction,
but
many
others,
peculiarly dependent
upon
a divorce case is
particular
facts of the
case. It is difficult to find two eases
exactly alike. Bach ease must be considered and decided on the
basis of the facts of the
under
case
consideration.
Black,
Black v.
200
1016,
Iowa
205
970; Klepper
N.W.
v.
Klepper,
Iowa
1138,
II. After attempts, two in the course years, almost two get a trial of her finally case was for hearing set on the morning of December appears 1961. It during the fore- day noon of said attorneys the able plaintiff for both and defend- ant had been negotiating and working on a fair settlement be- tween parties, special attention to the care the chil- dren. There any was never controversy about sufficiency plaintiff’s grounds for divorce, nor about having custody (cid:127) of the children. *5 consulting attorney from forenoon was
During the each eleven client. and respective his Between time to time with they what considered fair they arrived at o’clock twelve adjustment accepted the recom- property rights. Plaintiff of, attorney. desired to mendation Defendant said he talk her approval This met during his the noon hour. with aunt attorney. However, p.m., his and 1:30 between telephoned lawyer agreeable his that settlement was lawyer His him accept approve he or it. advised would not in very necessary for to be clearly would him that it in the by ease two o’clock. her appear Plaintiff, did not in court. with wit-
Defendant trial, ready for for the lawyer, present, nesses and her was By arbitrary time third since the defendant’s case was started. in present without a client court. action Mr. Randall left recommendation. Mr. accept Defendant had refused to his Ran- court, lengthy emphasizing made statement to the defend- dall settlement, possible absence, ant’s and his actions about a requested attorney. Attorney permission to as his withdraw plaintiff corroborating, made a as far as he also statement will knew, the Mr. Randall. We state difficulties encountered in fully place revealed the record: court, what took permission John D. grants The Court “The Court: and if feels it Randall withdraw from case the Court this necessary proceedings Randall upon call Mr. further get will with him. touch Honor, Your Your you, Thank
“Mr. Randall: permission I will Honor’s leave.
“(At courtroom.) this time Mr. Randall left the position Court and It is further “The Court: having ruling further cause been the Court makes 'a that this delayed times, that the matter reasons at various various proceed hearing As the file present should at the time. January 13, shows, original petition ease filed this case was any delay finding that the Court makes a further fault of hearing has not been presenting this matter for granted has de- but been due continuances *6 testimony, Mr. your you may introduce proceed fendant. So to Claassen.” p.m. testimony taken. At 3:45 the De-
Plaintiff’s was then following and the record personally appeared fendant in Court was made:
“(At point Neiderhiser, this Mr. entered courtroom.) you? Neiderhiser, Mr. aren’t You are
“The Court: “Mr. Yes. Neiderhiser: explain : I want to up Just come sit down.
“The Court going Neiderhiser, what is on here. Let the record show Mr. that case, quarter appeared the defendant in four. this Court at attorney, Your Randall, previously appeared Mr. has Court case, has withdrawn from the and this been case has con- many tinued proceeding hearing so that we a times are present time. today Neiderhiser: Well Mr. Woods is town out “Mr. tomorrow, maybe but he should today. be back : attorney Of course Mr. Woods is the I under- “The Court you stand whom previously employed had in this case and had discharged and employed Mr. place, Randall his is that not correct? Yes, I I right, have a have right still a
“Mr. Neiderhiser: to hire another attorney. you : Mr. Neiderhiser, right have a an to hire
“The Court attorney, that However, is true. case this has been continued on request several different your occasions at counsel, length because of the of time I involved felt that we were re- quired, justified or at proceed least hearing you whether attorney had an here or you whether attorney didn’t have an here. I
“Mr. Neiderhiser: see. “The Court: And the case has been nearly filed for two years regret you and I were not able represented by to be counsel. IBut think present at the time I will continue with hearing just this and we will see develops; what is all.
“Mr, Wei], use the : I be excused to could Neiderhiseb phone minute? for a courtroom.)
“(At left the time Mr. Neiderhiser We will wait until returns? “Mr. Claassen: “The Yes. Court:
“(Recess p.m. p.m.) 4:10 —3:50 had recess and “The Court: The Court ten is now Neiderhiser is back the courtroom four, and Mr. minutes after *7 statement, a you wish make Mr. to without counsel. Do but ? Neiderhiser I I for a until : Could ask continuance
“Mr. Neiderhiser may obtain counsel?” reciting point, a attorney made at
Plaintiff’s statement the hearing stating and that of to secure the troubles Thereafter, as follows: proceedings tried. were case should be say May something, I Honor? Your “Mr. Neiderhiser: “The Court: Yes. morning back in : Mr. Woods will be
“Mr. Neiderhiser today. not here but is difficulty have this district at this : One we
“The Court ill Judges unable is fact that two of the are are to time coming us; Judges hold in to assist Court. We had outside originally I day thought I and I could had this set aside I day case, aside hear this but find have all tomorrow set to County Attorney has some business for me Cedar that the County up But tomorrow morning. I can be here tomorrow my After schedule is filled unless some- afternoon. time prob- thing up something is settled —until comes unless mean—I January. quarter is ably Well, of it almost 11th or 12th until tomorrow today. I will the matter 1:30 after four continue much as proceed evidence we afternoon, and we will with ** * get [Following was addressed that time. statement can at Mr. Neiderhiser.] you present your will be with counsel If “The Court: until that date. afternoon 1:30 we will continue tomorrow at is present.with event he not But “Mr. Claassen: proceeding ? then is to be the counsel, what expect proceed I “The Court: Well, with counsel or isn’t here. With or without whether he here is might state, Mr. Yes, Neiderhiser, sir. And I further counsel. any motion will expect continuance proceed that I upon. say grant I I won’t that won’t severely be frowned any circumstances, experience I have had under because some hope proceed I to the trial of it. along line, but p.m. “(Court adjourned p.m. at 4:19 until 1:30 the fol- was lowing day.)” December
Court convened afternoon 1961. The personally present, nor Defendant was neither with or plaintiff’s counsel. rest evidence then taken. orderly carry
In out work of order a court it is neces- sary trial court control procedure. that the have some over If party ignore in case can wishes either and work a court only it will be a short time until we have utter in our legal chaos procedure.
A right tidal court to control has the and conduct its orderly, dignified proper an manner. not obli gated represented on the basis failure to counsel, to be subject whims, surliness, idiosyncrasies to the indignity Jur., litigant. Attorneys Law, 5 Am. 39, 40; sections 45 A. *8 1142; Trial, L. R. L. 1160; 48 A. R.2d 53 Am. Jur., sections 24, 25 and 34.
The action of trial was not based altogether on the place proceedings taking on December 27 and 28. There was a history years only dilatory of two of not part action on the defendant, but on affirmative violation of court orders dis- regard disrespect procedure. as to court
In case at bar knowledge the trial court had on De cember 27 and 28 of following delinquencies of defendant with reference to his He refused, actions: 1. and never ex plained refusal, such in present to be the courtroom at one time when in contempt he was cited of court for failure to return the children visitation, tearing after in ignition out the system plaintiff’s He Judge car. was fined Penningroth of the same district and ignition ordered to restore in the ear. 2. The instant ease set for two trial times before the Dis proceeded trict Court to hearing upon ease the merits. 800 25, 1961, and time on October hearing the first was set for At time de- for trial. subpoenaed her witnesses from the Woods, withdrew case attorney, first Mr.
fendant’s assigned beginning later. At was continued for if case was listed dismissal not September 1961 term the term of court. said tried Randall, attorney, D. secured his new John
Defendant 18. December It was then set for and he filed answer thereafter plaintiff subpoenaed her witnesses. On December 19 and on attorney requested psychiatric examination of her that date attorney plaintiff and her City, defendant at Iowa to which December hearing plain- on 27 and It was then set for agreed. procedure as here- subpoenaed witnesses. tiff her again place. outlined then took tofore did not abuse its discretion in the
We hold the trial court deny- approve followed. the order the court procedure We ing newa trial. question
III. in the case at bar is or The second whether support decree as to chil- the trial court erred in its parties. dren of the 598.14, l'owa,
Section Code of states: “Alimony custody changes. When a divorce — children — decreed, may the court make order relation such to the chil- property, parties, parties maintenance of the dren, and the shall be “Subsequent changes right. [*] * may
A divorce court take into consideration whatever property party arriving or either proper both owns at a divi property parties, especially sion of the between the in fixing support a formula the care and minor children. Here again peculiar each an important bearing facts of case have 182 Davison, 1116, on the matter. Davison v. Iowa 165 44, N.W. 45; Black, 1016, Black v. 200 Iowa 205 970; N.W. Parizek v. Parizek, 1099, 689, 690; 229 Brett, Iowa N.W. Brett v. 262, 241; Closz, Iowa N.W. Closz 184 Iowa v. 169 N.W. *9 185; 183, Brannen v. Brannen, 188, 459, Iowa N.W.2d 462; Mitchell, Mitchell v. 193 Iowa 185 N.W. 62.
This true particularly as the case at ages bar where' the many years of be- they children are such that need care of the maturity. day record does not disclose the and month fore stating years following birth, children’s but the fact of the approximate 12; Ralph 9; John ages: is now their James 8 and Nancy 7. following money
In the instant case the was before the court fixing proper in connection with fees and to establish care and support money of the four minor children: in the bank proceeds personal under attachment as sale property, computing January 1, 1962, the interest was $9081.50. personal be said in connection with the property should de- surreptitiously fendant sold some hogs cattle and after the re- appointed personal had been to sell ceiver property on the by farm. Such sale defendant was made in violation of an in- junction granted against him. This was another deliberate contrary taken action to a court order. Plaintiff money placed moved to have this in the receivership fund. On a hearing property to the sale of the injunc- violation of the Judge Penningroth tion found as follows: upon “That case on merits its there shall be taken into account that he wrongfully procured had this $4111.10 [defendant] which had from been received the sale of animals and which had been at- tached * * *» which he had sold in violation of injunction. an money
The next item of held under attachment pending disposition of the case final $12,000 a sum of which had been from the distributed sale real estate the referees. Ac- cording to the record there still remained in the hands of the referees, after the distribution and after payment of about a expense, dozen items of the sum of $970.55. We find a small unpaid apparently claim filed in partition action. Defend- the owner ant was of one third of such balance. His share in figures round would be $300. These items create a total fund court, its consideration, before $21,381.50. the decree of the trial
Under court the following attorney costs were paid: fees ordered Carl F. Becker, one of attorneys Woods, plaintiff, $200; L. Thomas formerly
802' case, withdrawn from the defendant, who had bal-
attorney for Randall, $427.15; at- fees, defendant’s attorney John of ance case, attorney balance of torney, from withdrew also who Claassen, of plaintiff’s attorney, balance $775; George G. fees, $236.16; total, costs, attorney $1300; $2938.31. fees, in of decree were filed and modification After the decree and thereto were new trial amendment January 1962, motion for appear for attorneys. new These attorneys by defendant’s filed filed Plaintiff resistance to the motion court. in this defendant the motion January 31 overruled. On and amendment. re- for modification decree and Thereafter, application duly order was upon filed which made. sistance were upon proceed- and orders filing, hearing these During the stipulation into a of settle- and defendant entered plaintiff ings, matters, signed by plaintiff which was both certain ment to respective present their by counsel of record. and defendant and money paid ordered that stipulation was be out of Under following in amounts: to fund defendant toward de- trust procuring transcript, printing fraying expenses record, of in argument $300; an amount not exceeding to and brief and expense printing her of brief defray argument plaintiff exceeding transcript The printing $100. amount not an exceeded We assume paid $300. of defendant costs printing Plaintiff’s cost only remainder. amounted to $70. agreed stipulation it In was also defendant should right money from withdraw the trust the sum of $1399.31 pay his 1960 federal principal $22.39 interest income taxes. hospital that stipulated bill
It was further at the Univer- paid should be sity of in the amount of from the Iowa trust paid additional items total $2441.70. funds. These There was $5380.01, of funds as itemized above a total sum of out the trust January leaving deposit $16,001.49. 1962 on balance provided plaeed trial court there should be in the trust department Merchants Rapids National Bank of Cedar $18,000 any sum of balance remaining the' fund should be divided one above said amount half of all items allowed payment After to defendant. half one meaningless. became this provision the court order, Penningroth provided his supra, Judge stated, As proceeds place $4111.10, application plaintiff, upon the the receiver’s ac- property personal sale postponed until the item should *11 disposition of said count, the after he received this Ten months tried its merits. on case was payment of application his filed an for defendant money in alleged appli- fund of the trust tax item out income The pay which to the income tax. with cation he had no funds in final no order as item decree. to this its trial court made ability accumu- and some work to some did contribute Because he repayment not order made. we will personal property, late the has wasted it. item or He either has the being complains about the trust fund Appellant
IV. without This Merchants National Bank com placed in bond. appellant’s argument that, in in plaint is connection made placed guardianship. We fact, under the trial court guardianship, pres under nor on consider defendant do not guardian. required to have a of the record is Under ent state cited, decisions of 598.14, supra, and this court heretofore section funds, part belong part which in these fact subject jurisdiction of in to the were right disposition had a to fix the The court of same this action. parties either or both or the children. for It was the benefit placed necessary guardianship defendant be under not accomplish pui-pose. this alleges any
Appellant that, rate, at fund trust in the by recognized bonding issued be secured a bond bank should necessary held bond not company. trial court we deposited The fund is in approve provision. Merchants Rapids, larger Bank of Cedar Iowa. This is one of the National capital dollars,- one in our It has stock of million state. banks surplus; one hundred seven million dollars over thirteen million deposits; twenty-five over million dollars in cash and dollars Deposits forty over million dollars United States bonds.
savings up in the bank are insured the F.D.I.C. ten thou- and of net worth the gross assets As
sand dollars. a matter of. company might any bonding which no doubt as safe as bank premiums be a waste of the Payment bond would selected. be money. children’s modify provisions slightly
We will trial court may of the fund. The trustee invest the to investment trust bonds, always keeping money municipal, or federal trust state may, discretion, mind the best interest of the trust. at its savings place $10,000 department more than in the percent bank assuming pay will four We are least bank. on balances. interest modify
V. the decree of the fix We will trial court ing Only defendant. a small distribution to a modest amount necessity of paid monthly payments be because of the can support of the children. hereby provide paid
We from the trust ac- to defendant. We do this with count a certain amount fear trepidation. record judicious Defendant’s and careful *12 expenditure money good. is As history of we read the of his very life dilatory married he was in farming connection with his operations. spite In of defendant’s delinquency parties the ac- $13,000 cumulated more than worth personal of property on the appropriated farm. Defendant over of $4100 money, the leaving heretofore, balance, the shown, as of $9081.50 in the trust ac- allowing We count. are defendant this additional in $1500 the hope squander if did that the $4100 he can start now out at years of age reasonably live a life, successful first to earn support money the decreed by the trial court and second to make a proper living and for life himself.
VI. The trial court fixed support a money payment by plaintiff through to defendant the officeof the Clerk of the Dis per of trict Court $80 month for the seven months, summer from April through October, until John years becomes 18 of age; per Ralph $60 month until then 18; becomes then $40 per 18; month until per $20 James becomes then month Nancy until 18. This starts becomes out at an average of per $46.66 month gradual year a the for reduction .as above stated. We hold is reasonable court decree of of the provision this and effect. in force remain fair shall or trustee on shown, the heretofore figures have In the we We $16,001.49. possession 15, 1962, in January had its about paid be to sum there provided out of this in the amount diminishes of We realize amount $1500. the is for the children, it also but the trust fund on behalf of the opportu- with an rehabilitated children that he be of his benefit money for his children. living support the nity a to earn January of in in of trustee This the hands the left balance District temporary order the $14,501.49. the 1962 of Under February 1962 the of decree modification Court issued the District Court pay Clerk the instructed to to the trustee was children, the support money the County, Linn toward during pendency month the day of each on 15th $215 sum has This means the trustee Supreme Court. of this action in the trust leaves a balance paid during out 1962. This invested year trustee has $11,921.49. During fund of through pur- or savings account bn either balance hand payable fees the end of some chase of bonds. There dividends or interest less We estimate the the trustee. balance the account. slightly increased the of trustee has fees money support during the paid has his We assume defendant year in $560. amount of modify necessary simplify the decree
VII. money support plaintiff. payment approach support the children from must the matter of We elementary there is use standpoint. It is no allo realistic paid support money after trust fund has been cating depleted. correctly, provides
If we read the decree trial court’s *13 money paid by support be the Clerk to the defendant’s trustee pay support National Bank. The trustee then to all Merchants money of Clerk of District into the office the the Court. We money step payment by the of cancel of defendant’s the Clerk unnecessary gesture. The tb the is an trustee. Clerk should it pay plaintiff paid to it has been by direct after defendant.
806 question, the the benefit of without preserve, to also desire We support money from of defend- to collection law as provisions of action, necessary, if becomes take it plaintiff so can by she ant for its collection. the decree of we read record under the
As the past per pro- month. paid during* year $215 trustee has per paid be month that this amount vision of the court is years is to to $260 more. Then the item be increased three years three per month until 18. This would be more John is $17,100 amount to and would exhaust the rate. This would this leaving nothing be years, trust fund less than six distrib- Nancy reaching Ralph, respec- while are their James and uted ages years. by 18 money paid tive of We realize the per year considered, it $560 of should but would not make be by fixed justify sufficient difference the amount the trial court. any help plaintiff children, At rate as and the we have held money paid to the Clerk and that hereafter defendant’s plaintiff. the Clerk direct to
We hold it is better and the children support ti*ust fund be distributed toward their on a basis run- ning through years, Nancy the next eleven until becomes age, years larger than distribute in approxi- amounts mately half of one such time. modify
We support provide decree of the trial court to commencing January 15, 1963, pay trustee shall to the Clerk of per $125 the District Court years month from the inclusive; to 1968 years John will then be 18 of age. For the years 1970, of 1969 and per month, $100 which Ralph .at time 18. will become For per 1971 and month. $75 At this time James year will become 18. In the 1973 the sum of per month on 15th each month. At the end of that Nancy time years will become age. payment This makes total by the support trustee for $13,800. the children of All such pay- ments shall be Clerk plaintiff, made support toward children, on or about 15th of each month. recognize
We depreciates plaintiff’s income for herself children in the years just However, her crucial ahead.
807 $125 month and allotment of per her earned income of $160 per per month for seven payments $80 month and defendant’s months, per month seven with months the amount totals the other five months. As children during a smaller amount the render valu- years age they become can and no doubt will family. assistance to able the by
There will be some dividends or interest collected depreciate through years. will the trustee This fast as the support payments will are made. There be some fees accord court, by ance the modification the trial of decree entered pro above, on the basis out view of the but we set vision we will hereinafter be make as to there will sufficient in through remaining the fund to run There years. may slight be support payments surplus at end of the 1973. Under the decree of the surplus trial court this is to be paid plaintiff to appealed defendant. If had or if fixing we were this item in inception its equally we would have divided it be plaintiff tween and defendant. However, we cannot order a more situation favorable than decreed approve court. We percentage paid of fees be trustee, which percentage apparently agreed the trustee. is very modest reasonable.
VIII. The provided trial if sick, pay- court defendant was hospital for his expense ments could made from the trust fund. court provided The trial also if defendant could earn living wage during wintertime, under restrictions, certain payments could be made from the living trust fund toward his expenses. We are cancelling provisions. these It is an unknown factor which paid should not be out of support the children’s money. Defendant is approximately years age. He is a strong able-bodied man. According report psychi- University atrist the State he has recovered from slight his mental aberrations. We are starting him out with a small nest- egg. There is no why reason he support pay cannot himself and the modest required pay amount support for the of his during children years. the next ten provided
IX. defendant should have month and Saturday each visitation on four children for them on to take right have the should every month he other *15 plaintiff on them to return overnight, and Saturday, keep them (cid:127) our conviction is complete record it Sunday. of the On basis the generous to arrangement more is holding visitation and of the four Taking the welfare should be. defendant than it into considera- children, plaintiff and and of both only children on the tion, we that defendant shall hold home, their and get He them at every Saturday. other shall trial decree of the court in the them. The hours fixed return approved. and are are reasonable stipulation the X. no entered Since is reference there counsel, as to present and certain parties into between the their parties, we rights are to be made and certain payments respective assuming and the fees of the transcript of the the cost attorneys litigation person- court will assumed in the in this rate, hold ally parties respectively. any At we no two litigation present as to the shall be made further allowances from trust fund. court provided herein, we have Outside the modifications we other of the approve provisions and affirm all the decree supplemental provide We the court enter decree ac- court. cordance decision. with this
The is—Modified and ease affirmed. Thompson J., JJ., and Hats, C. con-
Garfield, Snell, cur. JJ., dissent.
Moore, Stuart, Larson, Thornton (dissenting) respectfully J. dissent Divisions Moore, —I through majority opinion disposition III X of the as to the By property. provisions duty of section 598.14 it is the property such an order in relation to the to make parties right. as shall be opinion majority gives part property The of the to defend- puts the balance trust for the ant children. result
809- plaintiff, slightest fault against without accusation of her, penniless. is left any
I provision prop- would and divide the eliminate trust erty. seventy-five percent twenty-five percent require per pay $80 defendant. I would month also support. child agree
I majority opinion custody regarding children and defendant’s visitations. JJ., join in this dissent.
Larson, Stuart, Thornton Rutledge Flying Albert al., appellees, et v. Des Moines Serv-
ice, Inc., appellant.
No. 50823. 262) (Reported in 119 N.W.2d