Opinion ID: 2224784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Need to Show Substantial Change in Circumstances.

Text: Both the trial court and the court of appeals concluded Elizabeth must establish a substantial change in circumstances before the court could modify the alimony provision of the dissolution decree. Iowa Code section 598.21(8)(1987) provides that [t]he court may subsequently modify orders made under this section when there is a substantial change in circumstances. The statutory authorization for modification based upon a change in circumstances has existed for over 100 years. See In re Marriage of Marshall, 394 N.W.2d 392, 397 (Iowa 1986) (Larson, J., dissenting). We have long recognized the well-established rule that the modification of an alimony award is proper only when there has been a material and substantial change in the circumstances of the parties making it equitable that different terms be fixed. See In re Marriage of Glass, 213 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Iowa 1973). Elizabeth argues under the terms of the dissolution decree that she is only required to show that she still needs alimony. She urges the language of the decree expresses a clear intent that the court retain jurisdiction to modify the alimony provision without the necessity of showing a change of circumstances. As authority for an exception to the general rule, she cites the case of In re Marriage of Schlenker, 300 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 1981). In Schlenker, we expressed our distaste for decrees that retain jurisdiction to review alimony, child support, or custody. While retention of jurisdiction is discouraged, it is not forbidden. Id. at 165. Only when the decree unequivocally provides for later trial court review without the necessity of showing a change of circumstances will we find this was the court's intent. Id. at 166. In Schlenker the trial court ordered the respondent to pay alimony until March 31, 1982. The decree further provided: The court shall retain jurisdiction so as to review the provision concerning alimony at the end of two years from the date of filing. We held the language of the decree was final and could be modified only upon a proper showing of a change of circumstances. The language of the Schlenker decree is similar to the language in the present case. We agree that the decree does not unequivocally provide for later court review without proof of a change of circumstances. We again express our reluctance to recognize piecemeal decrees.