IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ADELINE L. LEPLEY AND ROBERT W. LEPLEY Upon the Petition of ADELINE L. LEPLEY, n/k/a ADELINE L. REDMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning ROBERT W. LEPLEY, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-488 / 05-0984
Filed October 11, 2006
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ADELINE L. LEPLEY
AND ROBERT W. LEPLEY
Upon the Petition of
ADELINE L. LEPLEY,
n/k/a ADELINE L. REDMAN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
ROBERT W. LEPLEY,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza Ovrom, Judge.
Robert Lepley appeals from a district court order that required him to pay
a postsecondary education subsidy to his daughter. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
James Waters, Ankeny, for appellant.
Jeanne Johnson, Des Moines, and Jacqueline Rypma, Des Moines, for
appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
Robert Lepley appeals from a district court order that required him to pay
a postsecondary education subsidy to his daughter. He contends the district
court erred in rejecting his claim of repudiation and in computing the amount of
the subsidy. We affirm the ruling of the district court with some modification.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Robert and Adeline Lepley were divorced in 1995. The parties have one
child, Nicole, who was born on October 25, 1986. Since the divorce, Adeline has
had primary physical care of Nicole. Nicole turned eighteen in October 2004.
She was accepted as a student at Simpson College for the fall 2005 term. Nicole
planned to live with her mother while she attended college. 1
Adeline is retired from the U.S. Postal Service. She receives a pension of
$1500 per month. Robert works as a supervisor of maintenance operations for
the U.S. Postal Service. He earns $52,000 per year.
On April 13, 2005, Adeline filed an application requesting that a
postsecondary education subsidy be established for Nicole pursuant to Iowa
Code chapter 598 (2005). Adeline agreed to pay a subsidy in the amount of onethird the cost of attending an in-state public institution, and she asked the court to
order Robert to pay a postsecondary education subsidy in the same amount.
Robert filed a resistance to Adeline’s application. He claimed he should not be
ordered to pay a subsidy because Nicole had publicly disowned and repudiated
him.
1
Nicole has no independent means of support other than her parents.
3
Following a contested hearing, the district court found the cost of tuition
and a partial meal plan at Simpson College for a student living off campus was
$23,803 per year and that Nicole would receive $12,375 in scholarships and
loans, reducing the cost to $11,428. The court found the cost of tuition to attend
Iowa State University was $15,320, and the cost of tuition to attend the University
of Iowa was $15,696, for an average of $15,508. The court concluded Nicole
had not repudiated Robert and ordered Robert and Adeline to each pay $5169 as
a postsecondary education subsidy for Nicole. Robert now appeals.
II.
Scope & Standards of Review
Under Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), a “court may order a postsecondary
education subsidy if good cause is shown.” In determining whether good cause
exists for ordering a subsidy, the court considers “the age of the child, the ability
of the child relative to postsecondary education, the child's financial resources,
whether the child is self-sustaining, and the financial condition of each parent.”
Id. § 598.21(5A)(a). If these factors fail to support good cause, no subsidy is
necessary. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 253 (Iowa 2006). We
review the court’s restitution order de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight
to the district court’s findings, but they are not binding.
In re Marriage of
Pendergast, 565 N.W.2d 354, 356 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
III.
Repudiation Claim
Robert claims his daughter repudiated him, so he should not be required
to pay a postsecondary education subsidy.
Under Iowa Code section
598.21(5A)(c), the court cannot award a postsecondary education subsidy “if the
4
child has repudiated the parent by publicly disowning the parent, refusing to
acknowledge the parent, or by acting in a similar manner.”
When Nicole turned sixteen, she asked her father if she could have a
more flexible visitation schedule rather than spend every other weekend at his
home on a farm near Melcher because she was involved in extracurricular
activities and wanted to spend more time with her friends. Robert interpreted this
request to mean Nicole no longer wished to see him, and he told her to follow the
visitation schedule in the decree or no longer come to his home. Since Nicole
turned sixteen, she has had little contact with her father, and he has made little
effort to see her. Robert testified he did not send her birthday or Christmas cards
or gifts for several years, he did not attend her National Honor Society induction
even though he was invited, and he did not intend to attend her high school
graduation.
Robert filed a contempt action against Adeline for missed visitation in
2004, and the district court ruled Adeline was not in contempt. As part of the
contempt action, the court ordered Robert and Nicole to attend counseling in an
attempt to mend their relationship. Dr. Michael Hopkins, the counselor for Robert
and Nicole, testified he was unable to reunite the father and daughter despite his
best efforts. Dr. Hopkins stated Robert was unwilling to tell Nicole he loved her
during counseling and was unable to leave the past behind. Nicole told her
father she loved him and wanted to have a relationship with him.
Nicole and Robert met for lunch to discuss the present instead of past
disputes, as instructed by Dr. Hopkins, but the meeting did not go well because
Robert asked why Nicole had not visited him. Dr. Hopkins attempted to arrange
5
another visit, but Robert called his office and complained he used to be able to
talk to Nicole on the phone, but now, he had to go through the doctor. The
second visit never occurred.
At trial, Robert attempted to prove Nicole had repudiated him at a wedding
reception for his son, Nicole’s half-brother.
Robert claimed Nicole spoke to
various members of his family, but ignored him. He also claimed he did not
attempt to speak to Nicole during the reception.
Nicole testified that Robert
approached her as she was leaving the reception, hugged her, and told her he
loved her.
Nicole also told Dr. Hopkins what occurred at the reception.
Dr. Hopkins testified when Nicole told him about her father hugging her, she “sat
in [his] office and sobbed and sobbed and sobbed.” During Robert’s testimony,
he denied he had hugged his daughter and denied he told her he loved her at the
reception. The district court noted, “At that point in the trial Nicole began to sob
in the courtroom, and had to leave.” Robert testified he felt like he was just a
checkbook to Nicole.
Robert maintains the facts of this case when viewed in the light of
Pendergast, 565 N.W.2d at 355, support his claim of repudiation. In Pendergast,
the court held a daughter repudiated her father when she completely cut off her
relationship with him, asked for the return of any personal property still in her
father’s possession, wrote him a letter telling him she “no longer considered him
to be her father,” failed to acknowledge him at funerals for his parents, and did
not list him as a parent in the program for her high school graduation. Id. The
record in this case reveals Nicole attempted to mend her relationship with her
father rather than alienate him.
6
The district court concluded Robert failed to prove Nicole repudiated him.
The court stated:
She has never publicly disowned him, refused to acknowledge him,
or acted in a similar manner. The court assigns the responsibility
for the estrangement between Robert and Nicole to Robert. He has
acted in a very immature manner in his relationship with Nicole.
Because she will not follow rigid visitation guidelines, he refuses to
see her at all. He does not attend her school functions. She
wanted to visit him in his home with her boyfriend, and Robert
refused. He testified that he didn’t know the boy, and that he might
be a “thug.” This is typical of the excuses offered by Robert to
justify his estrangement from Nicole. Nicole loves her father and
would like to mend their relationship. She willingly participated in
counseling with her father. She listed Robert as her father for an
article in the high school newspaper. She contacted him about
graduation announcements, but he did not respond. She would like
him to attend her high school graduation and to visit Simpson for
freshman orientation.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court findings
and adopt them as our own. The record simply does not support the conclusion
that Nicole repudiated her father.
IV.
Computation of Postsecondary Education Subsidy
Robert also contends the district court erred in computing the amount of
the parties’ postsecondary education subsidy. He maintains the court should
have subtracted the amount of grants and loans Nicole would have been
awarded at Simpson ($12,375) from the average cost of attending an in-state
public university ($15,508). Subtracting $12,375 from $15,508 leaves $3133.
Robert argues he and Adeline should each have been ordered to pay $1566.50,
one-half of this balance.
In order for the court to determine the amount of the subsidy, the cost of
the college education is determined based on the educational costs of attending
7
an in-state public institution. Iowa Code § 598.21(5A)(a)(1). The amount the
child can reasonably expect to contribute, including contributions in the form of
student loans, scholarships, and grants, is deducted from the cost figure. Id. §
598.21(5A)(a)(2)-(3). The amount that remains is apportioned to the parents,
and the amount paid by each parent may not exceed one-third the cost of
attending an in-state public institution. Id. § 598.21(5A)(a)(3).
In this case, the district court determined the cost of tuition and a partial
meal plan at Simpson College for a student living off campus. The court then
deducted the amount Nicole would reasonably expect to contribute, including
contributions in the form of student loans and scholarships, and found that if each
parent contributed one-half share of the difference, the amount exceeded onethird the total cost of postsecondary education at an in-state public institution.
The court then computed the average cost to attend an in-state public institution
and capped each parent’s contribution at one-third the cost of an in-state school.
Adeline contends the district court’s approach was correct.
In a case decided after the district court ruled in this case, our supreme
court recognized that our statutory scheme for calculating a postsecondary
education subsidy can fall short of providing a complete solution in all
circumstances. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 254 (Iowa 2006).
This is particularly true for students of divorced parents who desire to attend an
out-of-state institution or a private, in-state college. Id.
In Sullins, a student attending an out-of-state institution received loans
and federal work-study money in excess of the total costs of attending a public,
in-state college, and the court found the statute did not require parents to
8
contribute to the college education costs when there was no evidence the
student would not have been able to contribute similar amounts to a college
education at an in-state college.
Id. at 255.
Although the district court’s
resolution of the postsecondary education subsidy issue in this case is not
without equitable appeal, we believe the approach advocated by Robert is more
consistent our supreme court’s pronouncements in Sullins.
Accordingly, we
modify the district court’s decree to provide that each parent’s contribution to
Nicole’s postsecondary education subsidy is fixed in the amount of $1566.50.
V.
Conclusion
Because Robert failed to show his daughter repudiated him, the district
court did not err in ordering a postsecondary education subsidy. We modify the
court’s decree to provide that the amount of the subsidy for Robert and Adeline
shall be reduced to the sum of $1566.50 for each parent. We award no appellate
attorney fees. The costs of this appeal are taxed one-half to each party.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Sackett, C.J., concurs; Vogel, J., concurs specially.
9
VOGEL, J. (concurring specially)
I agree there was no evidence presented that Nicole would not have been
able to secure similar loans, scholarships, and grants had she chosen to attend a
state school.
See In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 253-55 (Iowa
2006). However, the converse is also true: there was no evidence presented
that Nicole would have been able to secure similar financial assistance at a state
school. It is an artificial assumption that the financial assistance Nicole was
offered to attend Simpson College would have been available had she chosen to
attend a state public institution. Nonetheless, the lack of proof on this issue to
support either position requires the result as crafted by the majority.
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.
