Opinion
No. 3-479 / 02-1713
Filed August 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forFayette County, James L. Beeghly, Judge.
Dennis Stamp appeals the amount of his child support obligation. AFFIRMED.
Larry Woods, Oelwein, for appellant.
Sara Kersenbrock, Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Dennis Stamp appeals the amount of his child support obligation. He claims that because the parties were awarded joint physical care of their minor children, his child support obligation should be reduced. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Leanna and Dennis Stamp were married in 1985. They have three children: Jacob, born in 1986; Lisa, born in 1987; and Joshua, born in 1991. Leanne is employed as a bookkeeper and has annual income of about $17,680. Dennis is a truck driver, and he earns about $25,000 per year.
The parties entered into a stipulation regarding the division of marital property. They also agreed to joint legal custody and joint physical care of the children. The issues of child support and medical expenses were presented to the district court. The court determined Dennis should pay child support of $350 per month for the support of the three children, the amount to be reduced as each child became eighteen or graduated from high school, whichever occurred last. Dennis was made responsible for fifty-eight percent of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses, with Leanna responsible for the other forty-two percent.
Dennis filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), asking the court to determine each party's child support obligation under the Child Support Guidelines, Iowa Court Rule 9.12, then offsetting those amounts. The court noted the amount of child support varied from the guidelines amount, but determined there were sufficient grounds for the variance in this case because the parties agreed Dennis would not be required to pay alimony as long as he was obligated to pay child support. Dennis appeals.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g).
III. Child Support
Generally, in instances of joint physical care we use the offset method approved in In re Marriage of Fox, 559 N.W.2d 26, 28 (Iowa 1997), and followed in In re Marriage of Swanson, 586 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by In re Marriage of Denly, 590 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Iowa 1999). In the offset method each parent should be deemed the noncustodial parent on the guidelines chart for purposes of calculating the support each would owe the other. Fox, 559 N.W.2d at 28. One parent's financial obligation is offset to the other, rather than requiring a monthly exchange of child support payments. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 400 (Iowa 1992)).
In the present case, if we consider Dennis the noncustodial parent, his child support obligation under the child support guidelines would average $381.04 per month. If Leanna is considered the noncustodial parent, her average child support obligation would be $327.71. If these amounts were offset, Dennis would be required to pay $53.33 in child support for the three children each month.
The parties agreed they would each receive one tax exemption, and the exemption for the third child would be alternated between the parties each year. The child support was calculated for each scenario, and an average taken of these amounts.
The district court deviated from the offset amount, and ordered Dennis to pay $350 per month in child support. Deviation from the child support guidelines is discouraged. In re Marriage of Jones, 653 N.W.2d 589, 593 (Iowa 2002). The district court may adjust a child support obligation "if the court finds an adjustment necessary to provide for the needs of the children and do justice between the parties under the special circumstances of the case." Id. (quoting State ex rel. Reaves v. Kappmeyer, 514 N.W.2d 101, 104 (Iowa 1994)). The court has judicial discretion to consider factors that make application of the guidelines unjustified. In re Marriage of Thede, 568 N.W.2d 59, 60 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
One justification for deviating from the child support guidelines is a party's waiver of alimony. See In re Marriage of Handeland, 564 N.W.2d 445, 447 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). At the dissolution hearing, Leanna's attorney stated, "I think we had originally made a claim for alimony but I believe we are releasing that claim based on the child support." In ruling on the rule 1.904(2) motion, the district court found the parties had agreed Dennis would not be required to pay alimony as long as he was obligated to pay child support. We defer to the district court's discretion in this case and conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in finding a deviation from the child support guidelines was justified.
IV. Attorney Fees
Leanna seeks attorney fees for this appeal. An award of appellate attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court's discretion. In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We consider the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the party making the request was obligated to defend the district court's decision on appeal. In re Marriage of Maher, 596 N.W.2d 561, 568 (Iowa 1999). We determine Dennis should contribute $1000 for Leanna's appellate attorney fees.
We affirm the decision of the district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Dennis.