IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEVEN L. KAUFMAN AND SARAH E. KAUFMAN Upon the Petition of STEVEN L. KAUFMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning SARAH E. KAUFMAN, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-877 / 06-0876
Filed December 28, 2006
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEVEN L. KAUFMAN
AND SARAH E. KAUFMAN
Upon the Petition of
STEVEN L. KAUFMAN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
SARAH E. KAUFMAN,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, William L. Dowell,
Judge.
Respondent appeals from a district court order on temporary matters in a
dissolution proceeding. AFFIRMED.
Danny L. Cornell of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
Michael C. Vance of Vance Law Offices, Mt. Pleasant, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., Vogel, J., and Brown, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
2
HUITINK, P.J.
Steven and Sarah Kaufman were married in 1987. Steven filed a petition
for dissolution of marriage in April 2006. Sarah filed an application for temporary
custody, child support, and attorney fees. She filed a supporting brief, affidavits,
and financial documents. Steven filed an affidavit and supporting documents in
response.
The district court, after considering the documents filed by the
parties, 1 filed its written ruling on May 8, 2006. The court awarded temporary
custody of the parties’ two children to Sarah and ordered Steven, a selfemployed farmer, to pay temporary child support of $39.66 per week. The court
further ordered Sarah to fund the children’s health insurance. Sarah’s request for
an award of temporary attorney fees was denied.
Sarah appeals. See In re Marriage of Denly, 590 N.W.2d 48, 50-51 (Iowa
1999) (holding that temporary orders involving financial assistance in dissolution
cases are final judgments appealable as a matter of right).
She argues the
district court erred in (1) calculating Steven’s income for purposes of determining
temporary child support by reducing Steven’s income by accelerated
depreciation claimed on his tax returns, (2) requiring her to fund the children’s
health insurance, and (3) denying her request for temporary attorney fees. Both
parties request an award of appellate attorney fees. Our review is de novo. Iowa
R. App. P. 6.4.
In calculating child support, the court must first determine the parents’
current monthly net income “from the most reliable evidence presented.” In re
Marriage of Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa 1999). The Child Support
1
It appears from the record no hearing on the matter was held.
3
Guidelines define “net monthly income” as gross monthly income less specifically
enumerated deductions. See Iowa Ct. R. 9.5. The guidelines do not specifically
provide for a deduction for depreciation expenses; our supreme court has
determined “depreciation should not categorically either be deducted as an
expense or treated as income, but rather that the extent of its inclusion, if any,
should depend on the particular circumstances of each case.” In re Marriage of
Gaer, 476 N.W.2d 324, 328 (Iowa 1991).
We recognize the general preference for calculating farming assets under
a straight line method of depreciation. See, e.g., Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d at
52. However, the district court in this case reviewed the record and concluded,
Based upon the record before the court, the court has determined
the parents’ current net monthly income from the most reliable
evidence presented at this time. A more detailed examination of
the parties’ income, including appropriate additions for depreciation
and business expenses, may be appropriate after a full evidentiary
hearing, if such is necessary.
After reviewing the limited record that was before the district court, we cannot
conclude the district court erred in its calculations. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s determination of temporary child support.
We have carefully reviewed the remaining issues Sarah raises on appeal,
and we find them either waived or without merit. We deny both parties’ requests
for appellate attorney fees.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
