Opinion ID: 1936974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Longman

Text: As previously indicated, Deborah first urges us to overrule or limit Longman. In Longman, a father paid his son's college costs for three semesters before the district court ordered the son's mother to pay a twenty-percent subsidy. 619 N.W.2d at 370. The court, which also determined the father ought to pay a one-third subsidy, ordered the mother to reimburse the father for what he had paid above his one-third subsidy over the previous three semesters. Id. Although we concluded the mother's financial situation was not sufficient to warrant the imposition on her of any portion of the college expenses, in dicta we express[ed] the view that the district court's ruling requiring reimbursement by [the mother] was wrong even if she had an obligation to contribute toward [the son's] college expenses. Any obligation she would have had in that regard under section 598.21(5A) is owed to [the son] and is properly payable only to him or to the educational provider. [The father], in paying more than his one-third, court-ordered subsidy, was a volunteer and is not entitled to reimbursement for the extra amount paid. Id. at 371 (emphasis added) (citing Iowa Code § 598.21(5A)( b ), which states [a] postsecondary education subsidy shall be payable to the child, the educational institution, or to both, but shall not be payable to the custodial parent). Deborah maintains this Longman principle is inequitable, because a parent obligated to provide a postsecondary education subsidy can simply refuse to pay, and thereby force the other parent, without any hope of reimbursement, to contribute on the obligated parent's behalf. Deborah's argument, however, incorrectly assumes Robert was in default of his obligations. We quote, with approval, the following passage from the court of appeals' decision: [T]he legislature has said that the subsidy shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third percent of the total cost of postsecondary education. See Longman, 619 N.W.2d at 370. The thirty-three [and one-third] percent is a cap on each parent's obligation. The percentage, if any, the parent pays depends on his or her financial situation. Iowa Code § 598.21(5A)( a )(3). While the cap on Robert's subsidy was set in the [2000] modification order, that order did not determine what if any subsidy each parent was required to make. Consequently we must agree with [Robert's] argument that at the time of the hearing from which this appeal was taken there was no order in place requiring him to pay one third of [Anthony's] and Angela's costs, and the district court's order finding there was an agreement was in error. (Emphasis added.) The only relevant difference between the 1998 and 2000 stipulations is the fact that in the latter Robert conceded Anthony was entitled to a subsidy. There is a manifest difference in stipulating that a cap and a code section apply, as opposed to fixing the amount of a postsecondary education subsidy. See In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 668 N.W.2d 840, 847 (Iowa 2003). For reasons unknown, neither Deborah nor her attorney ensured she received a determination of and order for a subsidy for Anthony and Angela from Robert. Instead, the decree, as modified in 2000, merely states Anthony is entitled to a postsecondary education subsidy, the Iowa Code section 598.21(5A) cap applies, and that neither party shall pay more than one-third of either child's college costs. [2] Prior to the court of appeals' decision, no subsidy was ever awarded; only a cap was put in place. Therefore Deborah's first assignment of error, i.e. that we should reconsider Longman to permit reimbursement to a parent who pays for a defaulting parent's share of a postsecondary education subsidy, is based upon a false premise: at the time of the 2003 hearing, Robert was not obligated to pay a postsecondary subsidy. We need not, therefore, consider the merits of her argument. A question is moot when the issues it presents are merely academic, and any judgment rendered can have no practical legal effect. State v. Beyer, 258 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Iowa 1977).