IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA ANLIKER AND SCOTT ANLIKER Upon the Petition of DONNA ANLIKER, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning SCOTT ANLIKER, Respondent-Appellan t/Cross-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-148 / 06-1044
Filed April 11, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA ANLIKER
AND SCOTT ANLIKER
Upon the Petition of
DONNA ANLIKER,
Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
And Concerning
SCOTT ANLIKER,
Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mary Ann
Brown, Judge.
Scott Anliker appeals the district court’s ruling dismissing his petition to
modify his dissolution decree. Donna Anliker cross-appeals. AFFIRMED ON
BOTH APPEALS.
Marlis Robberts of Robberts Law Office, Burlington, for appellant.
Scott Schroeder, Burlington, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Mahan, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
Scott Anliker appeals the district court’s ruling dismissing his petition to
modify his dissolution decree. 1 Donna Anliker cross-appeals the district court’s
refusal to award her attorney fees. Scott currently pays $1250 per month in
alimony.
He alleges Donna Anliker’s financial position has substantially and
materially changed since the decree. Since the decree, Donna has had a few
part-time jobs and declared bankruptcy.
Her net monthly income, including
social security income and current spousal support, is $1551. As a result, Scott
claims his alimony obligation should be modified. We affirm on both appeals.
We review the modification of a dissolution decree de novo. See Iowa R.
App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage of McCurnin, 681 N.W.2d 322, 327 (Iowa 2004). We
give weight to the district court’s findings of fact, but are not bound by them.
McCurnin, 681 N.W.2d at 327. In order to modify a decree, the law requires
proof by a preponderance of the evidence there has been a permanent or
continuous substantial change in circumstances not contemplated by the district
court at the time of the decree. See Iowa Code § 598.21(8) (2005); McCurnin,
681 N.W.2d at 330-331; In re Marriage of Rietz, 585 N.W.2d 223, 229 (Iowa
1998).
In this case, both circumstances on which Scott relies were contemplated
by the district court.
The dissolution court’s statements regarding both the
possibility that Donna might declare bankruptcy and the possibility she might gain
some form of employment are fully set out in the district court’s opinion.
1
The dissolution decree was also the subject of appeal. See In re Marriage of Anliker,
694 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2005); In re Marriage of Anliker, No. 03-1371 (Iowa Ct. App.
July 14, 2004)
3
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s ruling denying modification of the
dissolution decree. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.29(1)(a), (d), (e).
Donna claims the district court abused its discretion when it refused to
award her attorney fees.
An award of attorney fees is within the court's
discretion. In re Marriage of Scheppele, 524 N.W.2d 678, 680 (Iowa 1994). We
conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award trial
attorney fees.
Donna has also requested appellate attorney fees. An award of appellate
attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court’s discretion. In re
Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). We award Donna
$500 in appellate attorney fees. Costs on appeal are taxed one-half to each
party.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
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.
