JOHN LEE HARRIS III and MARION HARRIS By Their Next Friend the STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOHN LEE HARRIS JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-682 / 12-2153 Filed September 5, 2013 JOHN LEE HARRIS III and MARION HARRIS By Their Next Friend the STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOHN LEE HARRIS JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge. John Harris Jr. appeals from the district court s entry of summary judgment for the State of Iowa in this declaratory judgment action. AFFIRMED. Eric Borseth of Borseth Law Office, Altoona, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and William Jacobs and Gary J. Otting, Assistant Attorney General for the Child Support Recovery Unit, Urbandale, for appellee. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2 POTTERFIELD, P.J. John Harris Jr. appeals from the district court s entry of summary judgment for the State of Iowa in this declaratory judgment action, contending the court erred in its determinations that (1) sovereign immunity bars the claim, (2) the doctrine of laches precluded Harris s action, and (3) imprisonment of a minor does not result in emancipation as a matter of law. Because this action, in effect, is an attempt to modify a child support obligation retroactively, which obligation terminated more than a decade ago, we need not address Harris s complaints. See Vrban v. Levin, 392 N.W.2d 850, 852 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) ( [T]he trial court possessed no authority to exonerate [declaratory judgment plaintiff] from past due and accrued child support payments. ).1 We affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 The district court rejected the State s argument that Harris cannot obtain a return of funds paid because Iowa law precludes retroactive modification of child support, stating that Harris is not seeking a modification of child support order; instead he requests a declaratory ruling that his children were emancipated before they reached the age of majority. We think this is putting form over substance. Harris brought this action in an effort to have the court determine the appropriate amount of support accrued and owed . . . after making the appropriate adjustments for the termination of support due to emancipation ; issue a ruling setting forth the overpayment of support ; and require [the mother] and/or the State of Iowa to reimburse John Harris for overpayments. All payments had become due long before Harris filed this action.
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.
