Court Opinion

ID: 9916837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 18:05:50.903246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:02.065356
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 23-0329
                             Filed January 10, 2024

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RENATA JEAN JOHNSTON
AND JOSEPH LEO JOHNSTON

Upon the Petition of
RENATA JEAN JOHNSTON,
      Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning
JOSEPH LEO JOHNSTON,
     Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, James M.

Drew, Judge.

      A father appeals from the order granting in part his petition to modify the

physical-care, visitation, and child-support provisions of a marriage dissolution

decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

      Austin J. Luse of Balduchi Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

      Sarah A. Reindl of Reindl Law Firm, PLC, Mason City, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
                                         2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

       Joseph and Renata Johnston divorced in April 2021 after an eleven-year

marriage. The original dissolution decree adopted their stipulation to grant Renata

physical care of their two school-aged children with visitation for Joseph. At the

time, Joseph had a job that took him to Alaska for alternating three-week periods

with the same time off from work back at home in Clear Lake. So the decree

provided that his visitation was “when he is not working following a 2-2-3 schedule

that continues to rotate.” This meant that Joseph had no visitation for the time he

was in Alaska but then would have alternating two- or three-day overnight visitation

periods during the other half of the time, when he was in Clear Lake.

       About four months later, Joseph took a new, lower-paying job in Clear Lake

with a more typical schedule working every weekday, which meant he was only

entitled to visitation on alternating weekends for two or three days respectively.

While not guaranteed by the decree, he and Renata also agreed to one more

overnight visitation every Wednesday. In May 2022, Joseph filed this modification

petition seeking joint physical care—to essentially extend the original parenting

schedule from just when he was off work for three weeks at a time to every week

whether working or not—or increased visitation rights. He also sought to reduce

his child support obligation.

       The district court modified Joseph’s visitation rights slightly, granting him

visitation every other weekend for three nights and every Wednesday evening for

four hours. But the court declined to change the physical-care or child-support

award and awarded Renata $7500 in attorney fees.
                                         3

       Joseph now appeals, arguing that the district court should have granted joint

physical care. He also alternatively argues that the district court should have

significantly expanded his visitation—or at least granted him the Wednesday

evening overnight visitation that the parties had been voluntarily following for some

time. He challenges the child support award as well, contending that the district

court erred in finding Renata’s income calculations to be more accurate and that a

proper calculation would have made modification mandatory. And Joseph argues

that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Renata attorney fees and

should have awarded him fees instead—both as a prevailing party and under Iowa

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.517(3)(b) for Renata’s refusal to make certain

admissions before trial.

       But Joseph has not met his heavy burden to modify the current physical

care placement with Renata to joint physical care.         Nor does his changed

employment justify a significant boost in his visitation. Yet we agree with him that

his weekly Wednesday night visitation should be overnight rather than just for four

hours as the district court ordered. Given our deference to the district court’s fact

findings, we cannot say that the court erred in declining to modify the child-support

award. And it did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to only Renata

and not Joseph. We likewise decline to award Joseph appellate attorney fees. So

aside from our further change to the visitation schedule, we affirm the district

court’s modification order.

       I.     Physical Care

       Once physical care of children has been set in a dissolution decree, “it

should be disturbed only for the most cogent reasons.” In re Marriage of Frederici,
                                          4

338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983). And so, a parent seeking to modify a physical-

care provision bears a “heavy burden.” Id. Joseph seeks to change the children’s

placement from Renata’s physical care to joint physical care. He must thus prove

by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial and material change in

circumstances arose after entry of the decree that relates to the children’s welfare,

is more or less permanent, and was not originally contemplated by the court. See

In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015). If such a qualifying

change is found, then he must show that joint physical care better serves the

children’s interests than their current placement in Renata’s physical care. See

id.; see also In re Marriage of Schiltz, No. 20-1740, 2021 WL 5105921, at *2 (Iowa

Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2021); In re Marriage of Kelly, No. 19-1295, 2020 WL 3571863,

at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 1, 2020).

       We review a district court’s decision denying modification of a physical-care

provision de novo. See Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at 32. But because “a court is

greatly helped in making a wise decision about the parties by listening to them and

watching them in person,” we give weight to a district court’s fact findings—even

though we are not bound by them. In re Marriage of Callahan, 214 N.W.2d 133,

136 (Iowa 1974).

       The change in Joseph’s employment was no doubt significant to him and

his daily life. And as detailed in Division II below, it was material to the operation

of his visitation schedule. But we cannot say it was so substantial and material a

change related to the children’s welfare that it justifies modification of physical

care. See Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at 37 (holding that seventy-mile move of parent
                                          5

with physical care of children away from the other parent did not “constitute[] a

substantial change of circumstances affecting the best interests of the children”).

       Nor can we conclude that modifying the children’s physical care placement

with Renata would be in their best interest. As the district court reasoned—relying

on its observations throughout trial and the dueling contempt allegations—“it is

unreasonable to believe that Renata and Joseph are capable of the type of co-

parenting required for successful joint physical care.”       See In re Marriage of

Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 697–99 (Iowa 2007).                Even many of Joseph’s

arguments on appeal critiquing Renata are thus self-defeating in a quest to have

joint physical care, and the parties need to cooperate on a level above what has

been necessary up until now.       Perhaps it would be a closer call if we were

reviewing the original decree.     But we are not.      Joseph seeks to modify “a

functioning physical-care arrangement.” Schiltz, 2021 WL 5105821, at *2. And

we will not lightly do so.

       Joseph stresses the extensive visitation that he had when not working in

Alaska, framing it as “uncontested” that they “operated on a joint or shared physical

care-like schedule, splitting visitation with children down the middle.” But this does

not change the modification analysis. Joseph was not awarded joint physical care

in the original decree. And having visitation for half of the fifty percent of the time

he was present in Iowa is very different than having joint physical care. Indeed,

seventy-five percent of the time Renata was still the children’s caretaker. And most

of that time she was solely responsible without any assistance or visitation from

Joseph. The visitation in the original decree was a creative solution to maintain

significant father–children contact given Joseph’s unusual work schedule. But it
                                            6

does not follow that an end of that work schedule means joint physical care is

justified. We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Joseph’s request to modify

the decree to obtain joint physical care.

       II.    Visitation

       Compared to his unsuccessful request for joint physical care, Joseph has a

less demanding burden to modify the visitation provisions of the decree. See In re

Marriage of Salmon, 519 N.W.2d 94, 95–96 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). While most of

the analysis is similar, “a much less extensive change of circumstances need be

shown.” Donovan v. Donovan, 212 N.W.2d 451, 453 (Iowa 1973). This is because

of the strong interests in continued contact with the noncustodial parent, the

greater likelihood that the details of the proper visitation schedule will “require

change over time,” and the lower impact of visitation modifications on “established

patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker.” In re Marriage

of Brown, 778 N.W.2d 47, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (cleaned up). As with the

physical-care decision, we review the district court de novo. See id. at 50.

       Like the district court, we find that Joseph’s change of employment—from a

job that kept him in Alaska working nonstop for two or three weeks at a time to one

with a more traditional workday and workweek based in Clear Lake—was a

material change in circumstances, more or less permanent, and not contemplated

at the time of the original decree that justifies modifying the visitation schedule.

This is particularly so given the unusual structure of the schedule to provide

visitation only when Joseph “is not working.” If the schedule were not modified—

by the court or voluntarily by agreement of the parties—Joseph’s job change would

curtail the frequency and duration of his visitation. He would go from seeing his
                                          7

children every two or three days during the half-time he was home to only seeing

them about every two weeks.          And from having them present for fourteen

overnights in every six-week period to only seven. This reduction in contact with

their father would not be in the children’s best interests.

       True, the decree permits the parties to agree to extra visitation. And they

eventually did so, adding a Wednesday overnight every week at the

encouragement of the district court during prior contempt proceedings over the

interpretation of the decree after Joseph’s new job. But this agreement does not

cut against modifying visitation; it supports it. The parties have shown that the

weekly Wednesday overnights have worked well to supplement the alternating

weekends of visitation. It is in the children’s best interests to adjust the decree to

guarantee this stable contact with their father in the terms of the visitation schedule

rather than leaving it solely in Renata’s discretion. And adjusting the terms will

reduce possible confusion and conflict between the parties going forward.

       The district court seemed to agree with all of this. But without explanation,

in modifying the visitation schedule, the court added only four hours of visitation

every Wednesday evening instead of an overnight visit as the parties had been

successfully following.   Joseph raised this discrepancy—among several other

issues—in his reconsideration motion, which was denied again without any

analysis. At trial, even Renata agreed that the Wednesday overnight visitations

were working well and did not seek any different change to the schedule. Neither
                                           8

did she offer any specific argument against Joseph’s request in resisting his

reconsideration motion or here on appeal.1

       We thus agree with Joseph that the decree should also be modified to

provide for weekly overnight visitation every Wednesday from at least 5:00 p.m.

until school starts the next morning or until 8:00 a.m. on Thursdays when there is

no school.2 We do not alter the rest of the district court's modification of the

visitation schedule. This schedule—with the extra Wednesday overnights—strikes

the right balance between the interests of the children in maintaining contact with

both parents and providing stability from the placement with Renata. Indeed, it is

a slight increase in overnights—from roughly a quarter of the nights to a third of

the nights in every six-week period—compared to before the job change.3 And we

are not convinced that any further increase is justified because of the change in

1  Renata summarily resisted reconsideration, arguing only that the decision
“should be undisturbed” because “[t]he Findings of Fact by the Court are supported
by the record and the Conclusions of Law are supported by the law.” On appeal,
she waived filing a brief, relying “on the record made at trial, her exhibits admitted
at trial, and the trial court’s ruling which is supported by the record and the law.”
2 Of course, the parties remain free to expand visitation further if, for example, they

mutually agree that an earlier start time is more convenient. While the district court
modification order began its four hours of visitation immediately after school at 3:30
p.m., it does not appear that the parties began their overnights this early. Indeed,
they litigated whether the children could first go to Renata’s home after school
before beginning the Wednesday and weekend overnight visitation periods. And
the district court then decided that 5:00 p.m. was the more appropriate start time
for the weekend overnight visitation and that it had no authority to interpret the start
time for the voluntary Wednesday visitation. We thus set the visitation to begin at
5:00 p.m. consistent with these past practices.
3 Before Joseph’s job change, it appears he would have had nine or twelve

overnights every six weeks depending on the rotation. In this modified schedule,
he consistently has fifteen overnights every six weeks. Without the addition of the
Wednesday overnights, the number would have dropped down to only nine.
                                          9

circumstances since the original decree. So we affirm the district court’s visitation

ruling as modified by this opinion.

       III.   Child Support

       We also review the denial of a request to modify the child-support award in

a dissolution decree de novo. See In re Marriage of McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d 528,

531 (Iowa 2006). But as with other modification decisions, “[w]e give weight to the

district court’s findings of fact” used in calculating the award amount under the

child-support guidelines, especially when based on a credibility determination.

Markey v. Carney, 705 N.W.2d 13, 20 (Iowa 2005) (cleaned up). And given the

district court’s “reasonable discretion in determining whether modification is

warranted,” we will not disturb that decision “unless there is a failure to do equity.”

McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d at 531 (cleaned up).

       Modifications of child-support awards are governed by Iowa Code section

598.21C (2022). In arguing that his child-support obligations should be decreased,

Joseph relies on paragraph (2)(a) of that section, which provides that a substantial

change of circumstances justifying modification is automatically found when the

current child support award “varies by ten percent or more from the amount which

would be due pursuant to the most current child support guidelines.” Iowa Code

§ 598.21C(2)(a). But the district court found explicitly and implicitly that Renata’s

child-support-guidelines worksheet was a more accurate reflection of the parties’

financial status. And using those figures, the recalculated amount under the

current guidelines is $1870.87 per month—only 1.6% less than the current

$1900.82 award and not even close to a variance of ten percent or more. So a

modification of the award was unwarranted under section 598.21C(2)(a).
                                        10

       Joseph mainly argues that the district court should not have believed

Renata’s testimony and documentary evidence about her income and should have

found—in agreement with him—that her income was higher.             But these are

precisely the credibility determinations that we give weight to. See Callahan, 214

N.W.2d at 136. And we see no basis in the cold record to second-guess the district

court’s finding.

       Joseph also makes a conclusory assertion that even if we accept the district

court’s finding of Renata’s income, “a running of the guidelines equates to

$1,690.57,” an amount that would be more than ten percent below his current

obligation. But Joseph fails to explain how he calculated that amount or why it

differs from the result of the calculation in the guidelines worksheet used by the

district court. And we have probed the entire record and also see no argument or

documentation supporting Joseph’s calculated amount hidden there. The district

court did not fail to do equity in denying Joseph’s request to modify his child-

support obligation.

       IV.    Trial and Appellate Attorney Fees

       Joseph contends that the district court should have awarded him attorney

fees of $2500 rather than making him pay for $7500 of Renata’s fees. He also

seeks his appellate fees. We review a district court’s award of attorney fees in a

modification proceeding for abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Michael,

839 N.W.2d 630, 639 (Iowa 2013). And “[w]e have similar discretion in awarding

appellate attorney fees.” Id. This is because under Iowa Code section 598.36,

either court “may award attorney fees to the prevailing party in an amount deemed

reasonable by the court.”     Iowa Code § 598.36 (emphasis added).           “[T]he
                                         11

controlling considerations in the attorney fee determination are the parties’

respective abilities to pay.” Michael, 839 N.W.2d at 639. For appellate fees, we

also consider “the relative merits of the appeal.” In re Marriage of Okland, 699

N.W.2d 260, 270 (Iowa 2005) (citation omitted).

       Beyond section 598.36, Joseph also relies on Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure

1.517(3)(b) for his requested fees. That rule authorizes an award of fees when “a

party fails to admit . . . the truth of any matter as requested under rule 1.510” and

“the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves . . . the truth of the matter”

unless the request was improper or for an issue “of no substantial importance” or

“[t]he party failing to admit had reasonable grounds to believe that the party might

prevail on the matter” or another “good reason for the failure to admit.” Iowa R.

Civ. P. 1.517(3)(b); see Koegel v. R Motors, Inc., 448 N.W.2d 452, 455–58 (Iowa

1989). But Joseph failed to preserve error on this issue because the district court

never ruled on his request for fees under Rule 1.517(3)(b), and he did not request

a ruling on that issue in his reconsideration motion. See Okland, 699 N.W.2d at

270. Since the issue was not preserved for our review, we decline to consider it

for the first time on appeal.

       On the attorney-fees issues that were preserved, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in awarding Renata a portion of her trial attorney fees and

declining to award Joseph his fees. While both parties prevailed to some extent in

the district court, on the contested issues—physical care and child support—

Renata was a prevailing party. More importantly, because Joseph’s income is

nearly four times greater than Renata’s, he has a greater ability to pay—and she

has a greater need for him to pay—the attorney fees.
                                       12

      Similarly on appeal, Joseph did not succeed on most of the issues he

raised. And given the financial circumstances, he has a greater ability to pay his

fees than does Renata. We thus decline to award appellate attorney fees and

assess appellate costs to Joseph.

      AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.