Opinion ID: 4252775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Trial and Appellate Attorney Fees

Text: The prenuptial agreement states the parties “shall have no rights” to attorney fees and expenses upon the filing of a petition for dissolution and the court granting a dissolution. The district court asked the parties to brief whether a prenuptial agreement’s prohibition of an award of attorney fees violated public policy. See Iowa Code § 596.5(1)(g) (permitting parties to a premarital agreement to contract with respect to “any other matter, including the personal 10 Jodi’s final alternative argument asserts, if she is not awarded “significant reimbursement alimony or increased traditional alimony,” we should increase her property award. Because we have increased Jodi’s traditional alimony, we do not address this claim. 18 of 25 19 rights and obligations of the parties, not in violation of public policy”). When the parties failed to produce “any case on point in Iowa or elsewhere,” the court rejected Jodi’s request for trial attorney fees, reasoning it did “not have authority to ignore the plain language of the parties’ prenuptial agreement.” The court ordered Tim to pay court costs, including the $9140 GAL fee.11 On appeal, Jodi claims the parties’ premarital agreement waiving attorney fees in the event of dissolution is “void as against public policy.” She contends it would “violate public policy to leave a spouse without means to litigate the best interests of her children.”12 Generally, Iowa courts have considerable discretion in awarding attorney fees in dissolution cases. In re Marriage of Steele, 502 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Jodi bases her argument for attorney fees on the public-policy limitation in Iowa Code section 596.5(1)(g), as well as section 596.5(2), which commands that the right of a child to support “shall not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement.” Jodi contends, because Iowa prohibits premarital agreements “from regulating child custody and child support, it follows that 11 In the temporary proceedings, Jodi requested fees so she could employ experts to appraise Tim’s real estate and farm machinery. The court ordered Tim to pay Jodi $20,000, reserving its final resolution of Tim’s advance for the decree. Jodi then paid the retainers and hired the valuation experts. In the decree, the court did not grant Tim’s request Jodi repay this advance. Tim challenges that ruling on cross-appeal. In declining to order repayment, the district court reasoned Jodi’s experts’ appraisals “ultimately became the figures agreed to by the parties’ in their pretrial stipulation.” The award of litigation expenses is traditionally within the district court’s discretion. EFCO Corp. v. Norman Highway Constructors, Inc., 606 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Iowa 2000). Jodi’s use of experts was related to the extensive nature and complexity of Tim’s assets and led to a successful stipulation of values by the parties. Finding the district court’s decision equitable and logical, we are unable to find the court abused its discretion. 12 Jodi also claims it would violate public policy to disallow attorney fees incurred to litigate the validity of the premarital agreement and the provisions of spousal support. Because she provides no compelling arguments to reach these litigation categories, we limit our analysis to attorney fees concerning child-related issues. 19 of 25 20 awarding attorney fees to seek child custody and child support cannot be prohibited.” In asking for briefing on the interplay of these two sections, the district court opined “it did not seem fair that a party with vastly superior financial resources could,” based on a prenuptial agreement, “possess a great deal of money with which to fund litigation over such an important issue as child custody.” The court explained that it “always viewed an award of counsel fees as a way to allow each party to a marriage to make a fair fight of it at trial.” Although the parties did not provide cases to the district court, both now cite relevant cases on appeal. Both also acknowledge the Iowa Supreme Court has not addressed the propriety of waiving attorney fees in a premarital agreement, making it an issue of first impression in this state. In support of her claim the premarital waiver of attorney fees violates public policy, Jodi cites Walker v. Walker, 765 N.W.2d 747, 755 (S.D. 2009), in which the husband argued the wife “unreasonably elevated the cost of litigation.” Jodi similarly claims her evidence took two days and Tim increased her litigation expenses by calling witnesses for six days. Walker held because public policy precluded waiver of alimony in a prenuptial agreement, by “logical extension” attorney fees associated with an alimony award also could not be prohibited by the prenuptial agreement. 765 N.W.2d at 755. Jodi argues a similar “logical extension” applies to attorney fees for litigating child custody and child support. Citing Iowa Code section 596.5, Tim counters that “[a]lthough the legislature had the opportunity to prohibit clauses in a premarital agreement that restrict payment of attorney fees when child custody is at issue, the legislature 20 of 25 21 did not do so.”13 But Tim acknowledges other state courts have found premarital agreements prohibiting attorney fees as to child-related issues are not enforceable. For example, in In re Marriage of Best, an Illinois appellate court analyzed a premarital agreement that “would bar fee-shifting for costs incurred in connection with child support.” 901 N.E.2d 967, 970 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). Similar to Iowa Code section 596.5(2), the pertinent Illinois provision stated: “The right of a child to support may not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement.” Id. at 971 (citation omitted). The “pivotal question” before the Illinois court was “whether a fee-shifting ban governing child-related issues violates” public policy. Id. Best answered the question in the affirmative, holding “the fee-shifting ban” in the parties’ premarital agreement was “not enforceable as to child-related issues because it violates public policy by discouraging both parents from pursuing litigation in their child’s best interests.” Id. at 970. Best cited approvingly to In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663, 667 (Colo. 2007), where the state supreme court pointed out the Colorado Marital Agreement Act (CMMA) did not specifically mention attorney fees; therefore, the “only statutory basis for parties to contractually waive an award of attorney’s fees” is the catch-all provision allowing contracts “not in violation of public policy.” Ikeler reasoned, “[u]nder this subsection, if a waiver of attorney’s fees violates public policy it cannot be enforced by the court because it is not a valid contract term.” 161 P.3d at 667. Ikeler concluded: 13 Tim also cites the South Carolina Supreme Court’s holding: “[P]renuptial agreements waiving alimony, support, and attorney’s fees are not per se unconscionable, nor are they contrary to the public policy of this state.” Hardee v. Hardee, 585 S.E.2d 501, 504 (S.C. 2003). Because Hardee does not address attorney fees for child-related issues, it is not persuasive to our analysis. 21 of 25 22 [A] waiver of attorney’s fees violates public policy where one spouse lacks the financial resources to litigate the dissolution, and the case involves issues of parental responsibilities and child support. The CMAA specifically states that “[a] marital agreement may not adversely affect the right of a child to child support,” which reflects the well-established policy of this state that the needs of the children in a dissolution proceeding are paramount. If one spouse is unable to hire an attorney, and the parties waived a possible award of attorney’s fees in a marital agreement, the lesser-earning spouse’s ability to effectively litigate the issues related to the children will be substantially impaired. This, in turn, may negatively impact the court’s ability to assess the best interests of the children. Id. at 670-71 (citations omitted); see also In re Marriage of Joseph, 266 Cal. Rptr. 548, 552-53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (reasoning a parent litigating a custody dispute is also representing the child’s interests and the parties’ fee-shifting bar “abridge[s] the courts’ ability to act on behalf of the children”). Finally, the Washington Court of Appeals rejected a husband’s argument that while parents cannot enter into binding contracts regarding parenting plan issues, the parties can waive a right to an award of attorney fees and costs, “which is not a parenting plan issue.” In re Marriage of Burke, 980 P.2d 265, 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Noting the “state’s interest in the welfare of children requires” a court “have the discretion to make an award of attorney fees and costs so that a parent is not deprived of his or her day in court by reason of financial disadvantage,” the court ruled the parties’ attorney-fee bar in their prenuptial agreement violated public policy as to litigation of parenting-plan issues. Id. In Iowa, the purpose of child support is “to provide for the best interests of the children by recognizing the duty of both parents to provide adequate support for their children in proportion to their respective incomes.” Iowa Ct. R. 9.3. 22 of 25 23 Similarly, the controlling consideration in determining physical care is the children’s best interests. McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 736 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). As set out above, Iowa statues prohibit parties to a premarital agreement from contracting in violation of public policy and from contracting “adversely” to the right of children to support. Given these expressions of Iowa’s public policy, we find persuasive the analyses in Best, Ikeler, Joseph, and Burke. Iowa’s commitment to the best interests of the children of divorce requires our courts “have the discretion to make an award of attorney fees and costs” as to childrelated issues in dissolution proceedings so that “a parent is not deprived of his or her day in court by reason of financial disadvantage.” Burke, 980 P.2d at 268. Accordingly, the provision in the Erpeldings’ premarital agreement waiving such fees and costs is void and unenforceable as to child-related issues because it violates Iowa “public policy by discouraging both parents from pursuing litigation in their child’s best interests.”14 Best, 901 N.E.2d at 970. We reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to exercise its discretion to make an award of attorney fees and costs to Jodi as to child-related issues litigated in the dissolution matter. Next, we grant Jodi’s request for attorney fees on appeal as to the child-related issues. See McKee, 785 N.W.2d at 740 (setting out standard). The amount of Jodi’s award, both at trial and on appeal, shall be determined by the district court upon remand. 14 Tim alternatively asserts, if we conclude “a premarital agreement prohibition on attorney fees” as to child-related issues violates public policy, we should find the agreement’s restrictions here voidable as applied and not void per se. Tim then asserts public policy concerns that Jodi would not be able to effectively litigate the children’s best interests are not present because the children’s interests were “fully represented” by the GAL and Tim paid the GAL’s fee. We are not persuaded. Tim cites no cases supporting his proposition a GAL’s role supplants a parent’s role in dissolution proceedings involving custody and child support. 23 of 25 24 Costs on appeal are assessed to Tim. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED. 24 of 25 State of Iowa Courts Case Number Case Title 16-1419 In re Marriage of Erpelding Electronically signed on 2017-06-21 08:38:55 25 of 25