In re Marriage of Rundall, No. 9-753/09-0037 (Iowa App. 12/30/2009), 9-753/09-0037.
| Decision Date | 30 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 9-753/09-0037.,9-753/09-0037. |
| Parties | IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF COLLEEN M. RUNDALL AND SCOTT RUNDALL Upon the Petition of COLLEEN M. RUNDALL, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning SCOTT RUNDALL, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Darrell Goodhue, Judge.
Colleen Rundall appeals from the district court's modification of the parties' 2003 New York dissolution decree.
Affirmed in Part and Remanded.
Thomas P. Lenihan, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Roger Hudson and Andrew Howie of Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
Colleen Rundall appeals from the district court's modification of the parties' 2003 New York dissolution decree. She asserts she is entitled to continuing spousal support and challenges the district court's modifications concerning childcare expenses and income tax exemptions. We affirm in part and remand for recalculation of child support.
Colleen and Scott Rundall were married in September 1986. They had three children: Connor, born in 1992; Lauren, born in 1994; and Julia, born in 1998. In 2003, the Rundalls' marriage was dissolved by a New York decree. The decree incorporated the parties' extensive "Separation and Property Settlement Agreement." They agreed on the division of their assets and debts, each receiving personal property and bank accounts. Colleen was to receive the balance of the monies from the sale of their New York house ($66,763).
The agreement included several articles relating to education and support. The "Education"1 article provided, in part:
The parties recognize that the Wife does not have sufficient marketable education and skills to support herself and to contribute to the support of the parties' children. Also, the parties acknowledge that the husband has earned an M.B.A. degree during the marriage, and that under New York Law, the Wife would be entitled to an equitable distribution award equal to some portion of the appraised value of this degree. The Wife has agreed to waive such an appraisal and accept the provision for her education in lieu of a cash special distribution award for her claim on the Husband's degree. Therefore, the Husband shall contribute to the Wife's acquiring a Master of Arts in Teaching degree ("MAT") (or the nearest equivalent), including any undergraduate prerequisites courses which the Wife must meet to be admitted to matriculate into the MAT program. The Husband shall pay half the cost of tuition for the Wife's degree. The cost of tuition for the Wife's program will be $484 per credit hour. The Wife shall provide proof of the costs, and the Husband shall pay to the Wife half of such costs. The parties have estimated that the total tuition costs will be approximately $22,000, and agree that the amount due from the Husband shall not exceed $11,000. Further, the Husband's obligation shall not extend beyond 10 years after any divorce between the parties, provided that he has paid all sums accrued up to that date. These payments shall not constitute alimony, maintenance or taxable income to the Wife.
Scott and Colleen agreed to "use their reasonable efforts to contribute financially" to the post-secondary education expenses of the children. Further, they agreed that if they are not able to agree on their respective contributions, "either party may make application to a court of appropriate jurisdiction to compel" contribution.
The "Child Support" article provides as follows:
The parties establish herein a plan for spousal maintenance and child support which takes into account, during the time that maintenance is paid, the respective anticipated tax liabilities of the parties.
Beginning the first of the month following the execution of this Agreement, the Father shall pay to the Mother as and for child support for the three (3) minor children of the parties the sum of $650 per month each month until December 31, 2008. The Father shall pay to the Mother a pro rated amount of child support for any portion of the month from the day after the execution of this Agreement until the first of the following month.
Beginning January 1, 2009, provided the Father is employed at pay commensurate with this present base rate of pay, that is, $170,000 per year, the Father shall pay to the Mother as and for child support for the three (3) minor children, the sum of Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($3,950) per month until one or more of the children are emancipated as defined in this Agreement. The Husband acknowledges that the current $650 child support figure was set lower than his current child support obligation would ordinarily be in order to give the Husband the benefit of a greater alimony deduction from his income. When the Husband's maintenance (alimony) obligation ends if he is not employed at the pay equal to or greater than $170,000 per year, either the Husband or the Wife shall be entitled to bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the amount of child support to be paid.
. . . .
. . . . The parties further understand that, in the absence of this Agreement between them, the provisions of the Child Support Standards Act would govern the determination of the amount of child support obligation to be paid by the non-primary residential parent to the primary residential parent. They acknowledge that the basic child support obligation calculated as provided for in the Child Support Standards Act would presumptively be the correct amount of the child support to be paid.
. . . .
The amount of basic child support agreed to herein deviates from the basic child support calculated pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b) for the sole reason that the parties have determined that the child support taken together with the spousal maintenance provided in this Agreement will result in greater after tax income to both of them and that given the factors upon which maintenance is determined under New York law, the Wife is entitled to the amount of spousal maintenance provided in this Agreement. The Husband acknowledges that the current $650 child support figure is set lower than his current child support obligation would ordinarily be in order to give the Husband the benefit of a greater alimony deduction from his income. Further, considering the inevitable financial difficulties of a separation and divorce, the parties believe that the child support and maintenance provided herein will result in meeting the basic needs of the Wife and the children without depriving the Husband of the amount of money that the Court would likely reserve to him for his support under New York Law as applied by the Courts of the jurisdiction in which a divorce between the parties is currently pending.
Scott was to pay to Colleen $4110 per month "for her support, maintenance and alimony" until December 31, 2008. In addition, the agreement called for "additional spousal maintenance" of "28% of any and all bonuses to a maximum of $14,280, 86.5% of which shall be deemed additional spousal maintenance, and 13.5% of which shall be deemed additional child support." If Colleen earned more than $28,000 "from employment," "the amount of maintenance paid herein shall be reduced by Fifty Cents ($.50) for every One Dollar ($1.00) in excess of Twenty-Eight Thousand Dollars after income and wage taxes." Scott was also to pay $7500 "additional maintenance" in twenty-four equal monthly installments "in consideration of the attorney's fees incurred," which could not be prepaid.
In the article entitled "Dental and Special Payments," the parties agreed Scott would provide comprehensive medical insurance until the children were "emancipated as defined in this Agreement." In addition, Scott was to provide "a pro rata proportion of the child care necessary for [Colleen] to work and/or complete her Master of Arts in teaching degree including any student teaching requirement," set then at ninety-two percent. The percentage was to be readjusted annually.
On December 22, 2003, the New York court filed a "Judgment of Divorce." In a separate filing that same date, the court's "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," includes the following:
SEVENTH: C. Defendant [Scott] induced Plaintiff [Colleen] to join with him in the purchase of a house in Rochester, New York, which cost $406,900, even though such a house was a "stretch" on their budget, when in reality the house was a reckless purchase, given that Defendant had good reason to believe that he might be imminently separated from his employment without immediate prospects of new employment.
. . . .
NINTH: That Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Separation Agreement . . . which has settled all matters between them including distribution of property and maintenance. Said Separation Agreement was fair and reasonable when made and is not unconscionable.
. . . .
ELEVENTH: That Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of Four thousand One Hundred Ten Dollars ($4110.00) per month for her support, maintenance and alimony until December 31, 2008, unless earlier terminated by the Plaintiff's remarriage, pursuant to the terms of the parties' Separation and Property Settlement Agreement.
. . . .
EIGHTEENTH: The award of child support in accordance with the D.R.L. § 240(1-b) is based upon the following findings:
. . . .
B. The income of the Plaintiff, who is the sole custodial parent is Zero Dollars ($0) per year;
C. The income of the Defendant, who is the non-custodial parent is Two Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($238,176) per year2 . . .;
D. The applicable child support percentage is twenty-nine percent (29%);
E. The presumptively correct basic support obligation would be Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($3,950.00) per month, plus expenses for health care not...
To continue reading
Request your trial