IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY BETH HASLEY AND EARL ANDREW HASLEY III Upon the Petition of MARY BETH HASLEY, n/k/a MARY BETH KRANTZ, Petitioner - Appellant, And Concerning EARL ANDREW HASLEY III, Respondent - Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-600 / 07-1030
Filed August 27, 2008
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY BETH HASLEY
AND EARL ANDREW HASLEY III
Upon the Petition of
MARY BETH HASLEY,
n/k/a MARY BETH KRANTZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
EARL ANDREW HASLEY III,
Respondent-Appellee.
_______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Martha L. Mertz,
Judge.
Petitioner appeals the district court decision modifying the child support
provisions of the parties’ dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Theodore F. Sporer of Sporer & Ilic, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Alexander Rhoads of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Des
Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Vaitheswaran, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2007).
2
ROBINSON, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
A dissolution decree for Mary Krantz (Beth) and Earl Hasley (Andrew) was
issued on December 14, 2001.
The decree granted the parties joint legal
custody of their daughter, Molly, and placed the child in the physical care of Beth.
Andrew was ordered to pay child support of $380 per month.
On April 11, 2003, Beth filed a petition seeking to modify Andrew’s child
support obligation. Andrew filed a petition for modification on April 29, 2003,
raising the issues of child support and visitation. Since the time of the dissolution
decree, Andrew obtained a different job and moved from Des Moines to Spencer,
Iowa. The incomes of both parties increased. Beth’s income is much greater
than that of Andrew.
The district court entered an order on May 11, 2007, modifying the parties’
dissolution decree. The court found there had been a substantial change in
circumstances since both parties’ incomes had increased by more than ten
percent. See Iowa Code § 598.21(9) (2003). The court considered the parties’
wages, and determined Andrew’s child support obligation should be increased to
$570 per month, effective June 1, 2007. The court denied Beth’s request for
retroactive child support. Beth now appeals the court’s denial of her request to
have Andrew’s increase in child support made retroactive to three months before
she filed her petition for modification.
3
II.
Standard of Review
This case was tried in equity, and our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P.
6.4. “In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses,
the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not bound by
them.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
III.
Merits
Iowa Code section 598.21(8) provides that child support payments “which
are subject to a modification proceeding may be retroactively modified only from
three months after the date the notice of the pending petition for modification is
served on the opposing party.”
Under this section, the district court has
discretion to retroactively increase child support.
McIntire v. Leonard, 518
N.W.2d 793, 794 (Iowa 1994). Therefore, we review to determine whether the
district court abused its discretion. In re Marriage of Ober, 538 N.W.2d 310, 313
(Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
We give deference to the decision of the district court.
The court’s
decision was well written and well reasoned. After a careful review of the record,
we find no abuse of discretion by the district court.
IV.
Attorney Fees
Andrew asks for appellate attorney fees. An award of attorney fees is not
a matter of right, but rests within the court’s discretion. In re Marriage of
4
Romanelli, 570 N.W.2d 761, 765 (Iowa 1997). We determine each party should
pay his or her own appellate attorney fees. Costs of this appeal are assessed to
Beth.
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.