IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0049

Filed December 21, 2016

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACQUELINE BUSCH VAN METER

AND CLARKE JENNINGS VAN METER

Upon the Petition of

JACQUELINE BUSCH VAN METER,

Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning

CLARKE JENNINGS VAN METER,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Todd A. Geer

(modification order) and Thomas A. Bitter (child-support order), Judges.

Clarke Van Meter appeals certain economic provisions of the orders 

modifying the decree dissolving his marriage to Jacqueline Busch Van Meter. 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Mark A. Roeder of Roeder Law Office, Manchester, for appellant.

Cory R. Thein of Pioneer Law Office, Dubuque, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Clarke Van Meter and Jacqueline Busch Van Meter were divorced in June 

2007. Pursuant to the dissolution decree, Jacqueline was awarded physical care 

of the parties’ child. In April 2014, Clarke sought to modify the decree of 

dissolution. In September 2015, the district court entered its order modifying the 

decree, granting the parties joint physical care of their child. Clarke then filed a 

motion to amend or enlarge the district court’s modification order pursuant to 

Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), which the district court granted in part and 

denied in part. The district court subsequently entered an order setting child 

support, which was modified following Clarke’s filing of additional rule 1.904(2)

motions. Clarke now challenges three economic provisions resulting from these 

orders: (1) the district court’s award of the dependent tax exemption to 

Jacqueline; (2) the district court’s failure to include Jacqueline’s residential rental 

income when calculating her child-support obligation, and (3) the district court’s 

equal division of uncovered medical expenses between the parties. 

Because an action to modify a dissolution decree is heard in equity, our 

review is de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re Marriage of Sisson, 843 

N.W.2d 866, 870 (Iowa 2014). We give weight to the factual findings of the 

district court, especially with regard to witness credibility, but we are not bound 

by them. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 

N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013). Case precedent has little value and we must base 

our decision on the particular circumstances of the case before us. See 

Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002).
3

Clarke first claims the tax exemption for the minor child should be rotated 

between the parties every other year.1 Clarke claims the tax exemption would 

provide greater benefit to him—who makes approximately $60,000 a year—than 

it would to Jacqueline—to whom he attributes a gross annual income of 

$230,071, approximately $90,000 over the $140,000 imputed by the district court. 

We note Jacqueline was awarded the dependency tax exemption in the original 

divorce decree. The burden rests with Clarke, as the party seeking modification, 

to show a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the tax exemption 

award. See In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260, 269 (Iowa 2005). Here, 

the parties now have joint physical care of the child, with Jacqueline paying child 

support to Clarke as a result of the modification and her significantly higher 

income. On our de novo review, we find no inequity in the court’s election not to 

modify its award of the dependent tax exemption to Jacqueline.

Clarke next claims the district court erred in declining to include

Jacqueline’s rental income when calculating her child-support obligation. Clarke 

contends he proved at trial Jacqueline earns $70,800 in annual rent and 

Jacqueline failed to produce evidence regarding deductible expenses from these 

income properties. In its order, the district court stated it had considered Clarke’s 

evidence as to Jacqueline’s rental income and found “the evidence presented as 

to [Jacqueline’s] rental income is insufficient for the court to make a 

determination as to the amount of net rental income, if any, [Jacqueline] receives 

from her properties.” In so finding, the court noted Jacqueline had recently 

 

1

Jacqueline claims error was not preserved on this issue. We note the modification 

order explicitly maintains the right to the tax exemption with Jacqueline “provided she is 

current in her child support obligation.” We find error was preserved.
4

acquired the properties and “credibly testified that she has expended significant 

sums on the properties to make them habitable. [Jacqueline] also testified that 

she continues to expend funds on those properties.” Thus, contrary to Clarke’s 

assertion, Jacqueline provided evidence in the form of her testimony which the 

district court found credible. We defer to that finding of credibility and affirm on 

this issue. 

Finally, Clarke alleges the district court erred in making the parties equally

responsible for all uncovered medical expenses for the child. Jacqueline 

counters the division is equitable because she provides health insurance for the

minor child. Iowa Court Rule 9.12(5): “In cases of joint physical care, the parents 

shall share all uncovered medical expenses in proportion to their respective net 

incomes.” The district court found Clarke has an annual income of $60,000 and 

Jacqueline has an annual income of $140,000. The court apparently relied on 

the child support guidelines worksheet filed on December 28, 2015, that showed

Jacqueline’s net monthly income at $7868.34, Clarke’s at $3616.58, proportional 

shares of income as 68.5% and 31.5%, and, as finally ordered by the district 

court, net monthly child support of $405.73. Using these amounts, we determine 

the modification order should be and is hereby modified to provide Jacqueline

shall pay 68.5% of all uncovered medical expenses and Clarke shall pay the 

remaining 31.5%. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Petersen, No. 15-0282, 2016 WL 

1757628, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016) (reapportioning the uncovered 

medical expenses from the mother paying two-thirds to the father paying twothirds based upon the parties’ respective incomes despite the father providing 

health insurance for the children).
5

Both parties request an award of their appellate attorney fees. “Appellate 

attorney fees are not a matter of right, but rather rest in this court’s discretion.” 

Okland, 699 N.W.2d at 270. In determining whether to award attorney fees, we 

consider “the needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party 

to pay, and the relative merits of the appeal.” Id. Having considered these 

factors, we determine the parties shall bear their own appellate attorney fees.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.