Opinion ID: 1649117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Postsecondary Education Expenses

Text: Timothy asked for a support order for higher education costs of the children in his petition for modification, and the district court failed to address the issue in its original modification decree, as well as the supplemental modification decree. Moreover, neither party raised the matter in his or her respective rule 1.904(2) motion. Timothy now asks on appeal that the issue be addressed. To preserve error on the issue, Timothy was obligated to seek a ruling on the issue by filing a timely rule 1.904(2) motion. See U.S. Cellular Corp., 589 N.W.2d at 720 (When the district court fails to comply with rule 179(a) [now 1.904(1)], a party may request that the court enlarge or amend its findings and conclusions.). He did not do so, and the court did not rule on the issue. Consequently, there is nothing before us to review. Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Group, 666 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Iowa 2003) (`It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.' `When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.' (quoting Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537)).