IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-2154

Filed September 11, 2019

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAMES TIMOTHY SALURI

AND SANDRA SUE SALURI

Upon the Petition of

JAMES TIMOTHY SALURI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

And Concerning

SANDRA SUE SALURI,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, 

Judge.

Petitioner appeals the district court order setting a postsecondary education 

subsidy for the parties’ children. AFFIRMED.

Mark Simons of Simons Law Firm, PLC, West Des Moines, for appellant.

Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West 

Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

James Saluri appeals the district court’s ruling on a postsecondary 

education subsidy. We find the district court correctly found good cause for the 

subsidy and properly applied the statutory three-step process to calculate James’s 

share of the subsidy. The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Sandra 

Saluri attorney fees. We affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

James and Sandra were previously married. They are the parents of N.S., 

born in 1997, and T.S., born in 1999. The parties’ dissolution decree, filed on 

February 1, 2013, did not include a postsecondary education subsidy but did 

reserve the court’s jurisdiction to determine the appropriate contribution from each 

party.

On July 19, 2018, Sandra filed a motion to establish the parties’ 

postsecondary subsidy for both children. N.S. was a rising senior at Iowa State 

University1 and T.S. was going to be a freshman at the University of Iowa.

On August 29, the court held a hearing at which both parents testified. 

James testified he thought the children should pay for their own schooling. He

testified his current wife had a full-time job and paid her own child support 

obligations and divorce expenses and their joint cell phone bill. James testified he 

was responsible for all other regular household expenses, which took up nearly his 

entire monthly income. James did not offer any support for his claimed expenses. 

 

1 James did not provide financial support for N.S.’s first three years of school. Sandra 

contributed money she had saved from child support to help N.S. with postsecondary 

education costs.
3

The court ordered James and Sandra each contribute $5027.00 toward N.S.’s 

expenses for the 2018-2019 school year. The court ordered each to contribute 

$6623.25 toward T.S.’s 2018-2019 postsecondary education expenses. The 

contributions were to be made directly to either the schools or the children. The 

court also ordered James pay $1500 of Sandra’s attorney fees.

James filed a motion to enlarge or amend, requesting the court modify the 

subsidy for T.S. down to $150 per month, eliminate the subsidy for N.S., and

eliminate the attorney fees awarded. The court found James was not credible 

concerning his claim that his wife contributed nothing to household expenses, and

noted James offered no support for his claimed expenses. The court did not modify 

its ruling. James appeals.

II. Standard of Review

“A proceeding to modify or implement a marriage dissolution decree 

subsequent to its entry is triable in equity and reviewed de novo on appeal.” In re 

Marriage of Pals, 714 N.W.2d 644, 646 (Iowa 2006) (citation omitted). In equity 

proceedings, we give weight to the factual findings of the district court, especially 

when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by those findings. 

Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g).

III. Postsecondary Education Subsidy

If good cause is found, Iowa Code section 598.21F (2018) allows a court to 

order a postsecondary education subsidy payable for a child pursuing a higher

education. James contends there is no “good cause” for the court to order a 

subsidy for the school costs of N.S. He also argues the court’s subsidy as to T.S. 

is higher than the suggested “family contribution” on T.S.’s financial award 
4

notification. James further claims the court erred in finding his monthly expenses 

had been inflated and he could not afford to pay the court-ordered subsidy.

“In determining good cause, the court must take into account ‘the age and 

ability of the child, the child’s financial resources, whether the child is selfsustaining, and the financial situation of the parents.’” In re Marriage of Larsen, 

912 N.W.2d 444, 449 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted). “[W]e do not require the same 

amount of parental sacrifice for postsecondary education subsidies as we would 

for payment of child support. In re Vaughan, 812 N.W.2d 688, 695 (Iowa 2012). 

“[A] postsecondary education subsidy must not cause undue financial hardship on 

a parent.” Id. The court may reduce the subsidy to take into account a parent’s 

meager means. In re Marriage of Neff, 675 N.W.2d 573, 578–79 (Iowa 2004). 

James’s primary argument on appeal is the court did not adequately consider his 

financial condition when it found good cause existed for the subsidy.

James has a yearly salary of $62,499, over twenty-thousand dollars a year 

higher than Sandra’s $41,600 salary. He claims he is unable to pay a subsidy 

towards the education of his children. In the alternative, James asserts any 

subsidy should be reduced to a modest amount. James submitted a monthly 

budget that showed he spent all but forty-three dollars of his salary each month on 

living expenses. James testified he paid all expenses for his home and utilities 

while his wife paid only their joint cell phone bill. The court expressly found his 

testimony not credible. The court noted that under James’s submitted budget he 

could not have paid his child support obligation, but he had. The court also found

James minimized his wife’s contribution to their monthly expenses and questioned 

the veracity of his claimed expenses. On our de novo review of the record, and 
5

giving deference to the court’s credibility finding, we agree with the district court 

there is good cause for James to pay a postsecondary education subsidy for each 

child and James has sufficient income and net worth to support the ordered 

subsidy.

If good cause is shown, the court determines the cost of postsecondary 

education, determines the child’s reasonably-expected contribution, and then 

allocates the remaining costs between parents up to one-third the total cost of the 

education. Larsen, 912 N.W.2d at 448–54 (examining the statutory three-step 

process found in Iowa Code section 598.21F(2)). Step one requires determining 

the reasonable costs for necessary postsecondary education expenses. Iowa 

Code § 598.21F(2)(a). “[T]he cost of attendance as published by each institution 

. . . is presumed to be the reasonable and necessary cost of attending an in-state 

public institution” for a court to use in making subsidy calculations under section 

598.21F(2)(a). Id. at 450. The district court properly applied the first step.

In step two, the court determines the child’s reasonable contribution, 

including scholarships, grants, loans, and the child’s income. Iowa Code 

§ 598.21F(2)(b). Scholarships are included as part of the child’s contribution and 

not subtracted from the reasonable costs under step one. Larsen, 912 N.W.2d at 

451–52. Whether to include available loans in the child’s contribution is 

circumstance-dependent, as is the child’s ability to earn income. Id. at 452. We 

find the court’s decisions to not include student loans for N.S. and to include

student loans for T.S. as part of the child’s expected contribution were equitable

under these circumstances.
6

For step three of the statutory framework, the court deducts the child’s 

expected contribution and divides the remaining cost between parents. Iowa Code 

§ 598.21F(2)(c). The statute places a maximum contribution from each parent at 

one-third the cost as determined under step one. Id. The subsidy per parent 

calculated here is less than one-third the total cost for each child and within the 

statutory parameters. The court’s calculations follow the statutory framework.

We affirm the district court’s order for postsecondary education subsidy.

IV. Attorney Fees

James contests the district court’s order to pay $1500 of Sandra’s trial 

attorney fees. Whether attorney fees should be awarded depends on each party’s 

ability to pay, and we review an award for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage 

of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 255 (Iowa 2006). Based on the record before us, we 

cannot say the district court abused its discretion.

Sandra requests appellate attorney fees. Appellate attorney fees rest within 

our discretion, and 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. (citation 

omitted). We determine James should pay $2000 toward Sandra’s appellate 

attorney fees.

After considering all James’s arguments, we affirm the decision of the 

district court.

AFFIRMED.