Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): relates to Melissa’s financial condition and ability to support her children. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Gehl, 486 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1992) (“[T]he new spouse’s income can be considered as it relates to the divorced custodial parent’s overall financial condition and ability to support the child.”); Page v. Page, 219 N.W.2d 556, 558 (Iowa 1974) (considering income of noncustodial parent’s spouse in deciding the appropriate amount of child support). Melissa and Jeff also have a child of their own, whom they must support on the couple’s income. This new dependent is a consideration in deciding whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances. See Iowa Code § 598.21C(l)(d). There was significant disagreement at the modification trial about Scott’s income. Scott p wa 1991) (<HOLDING>). In the 2008 temporary child support order, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff entitled to depreciation after repairs in determining the vehicles value at the time of the theft allowance must be made for depreciation then accrued (B) holding that depreciation could not be deducted from cost to repair building to its condition prior to fire under actual cash value policy (C) holding that depreciation in land value caused by a material change in a highway grade which made access to the property difficult is compensable (D) holding that the exspouse should be allowed a deduction for depreciation determined under the straight line method of depreciation rather than under the accelerated method (E) recognizing that determination of appropriate sentence to be imposed should ordinarily be determined by the trial court on remand rather than at the appellate level
Output (English): holding that depreciation could not be deducted from cost to repair building to its condition prior to fire under actual cash value policy