IN RE THE MARRIGE OF RICHARD J. ETRINGER AND DEBRA M. ETRINGER Upon the Petition of RICHARD J. ETRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning DEBRA M. ETRINGER, n/k/a DEBRA M. EARLE, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-581 / 06-0112
Filed August 9, 2006
IN RE THE MARRIGE OF RICHARD J. ETRINGER AND DEBRA M.
ETRINGER
Upon the Petition of
RICHARD J. ETRINGER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
DEBRA M. ETRINGER, n/k/a
DEBRA M. EARLE,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M.
Lekar, Judge.
Richard Etringer appeals from an order modifying a dissolution decree and
fixing child support obligations. AFFIRMED.
Brian Sayer of Dunakey & Klatt, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
John Wood of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, P.C.,
Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
In this appeal from an order modifying a dissolution decree and fixing a
child support obligation, the sole issue is whether the district court should have
fixed an earlier date to start the child support obligation of appellee, Debra M.
Earle. Based on the record made we affirm the district court.
The marriage of appellant, Richard J. Etringer, and appellee, Debra M.
Earle, was dissolved in December 1992. The parties had three children and
following the dissolution the primary physical care of the children was shifted
several times, primarily by agreement of the parties. By March 9, 2005, when
Richard filed the application to modify that led to this appeal, the older children
had passed their eighteenth birthdays and the issues of custody and child
support concerned only the parties’ youngest child, Trisha.
Richard sought
primary care of Trisha and asked that Debra be ordered to pay child support.
On November 1, 2005, the district court approved an agreement of the
parties that Trisha be placed in Richard’s primary care and entered an order to
that effect. The court further ordered that each party should submit to the court
what Debra’s child support should be under the child support guidelines and
should state their position as to the date that Debra’s support obligation for
Trisha should begin.
Richard’s statement was that he should not owe Debra child support from
February 2005 onward because that was when Trisha moved in with him and
that Debra’s child support obligation should be $524.71 a month from February
2005. He also asserted Debra should be responsible for Trisha’s tuition while
Trisha was in Debra’s care in the amount of $713.33. His contention is that
3
Debra kicked Trisha out of her home and that was why Trisha came to live with
him.
Debra’s statement was that she did not believe she had an obligation to
provide support for Trisha when Robert yet owed her child support for the time
Trisha resided with her. She further contends she did not kick Trisha out.
In addition, Richard made certain requests for admissions which Debra
answered. Debra denied that (1) Richard was current with his child support, (2)
she should pay back-support for Trisha to February 2005, (3) she kicked Trisha
out of her house in February 2005, (4) Richard should not have any child support
obligation from February 2005, and (6) Trisha had been living primarily with
Richard for over one year as of November 1, 2004. Debra admitted that (1)
Trisha had been living with Richard since February 2005, (2) Trisha only lived
with her for three months, and (3) she had sufficient funds to pay her own
attorney fees and costs of this action and should be ordered to do so.
On December 29, 2005 the district court noted it had received statements
to the court regarding child support from Richard and Debra and Richard’s reply
to Debra’s petition. No other evidence was taken by the district court. Based on
these documents the court found that Debra should pay child support of $524.71
a month to Richard beginning November 1, 2005, the date custody was modified
by the court. The court further found Richard’s child support obligation under the
previous order should be suspended effective March 1, 2005 and should
terminate on October 31, 2005.
4
Debra contends the district court did equity in suspending Richard’s child
support effective March 1, 2005 and that she showed that Richard failed to pay
his support obligation for Trisha while she was in her care.
We have no record on which to review Richard’s claim that the district
court incorrectly determined the date Debra’s child support obligation should
begin.
It is the appellant's duty to provide a record on appeal affirmatively
disclosing the alleged error relied upon. In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134, 135
(Iowa 2005); State v. Ludwig, 305 N.W.2d 511, 513 (Iowa 1981); Wende v. Orv
Rocker Ford Lincoln Mercury, 530 N.W.2d 92, 95 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The
court may not speculate as to what took place or predicate error on such
speculation. F.W.S., 689 N.W. 2d at 135. Having nothing to review, we affirm
the district court.
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.
