IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEBRA J. TURNER AND GARY R. TURNER Upon the Petition of DEBRA J. TURNER, n/k/a DEBRA J. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning GARY R. TURNER, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-234 / 06-1039
Filed May 23, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEBRA J. TURNER
AND GARY R. TURNER
Upon the Petition of
DEBRA J. TURNER, n/k/a
DEBRA J. ANDERSON,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
GARY R. TURNER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Thomas M. Horan,
Judge.
Gary Turner appeals from the district court’s ruling ordering him to pay a
post-secondary education subsidy to his daughter.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Kenneth F. Dolezal, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Debra J. Anderson, Walker, pro se.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Mahan, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
Gary Turner appeals from the district court’s ruling ordering him to pay a
post-secondary education subsidy to his daughter, Danielle. He contends the
trial court erred by treating a Veterans’ Disability Education Benefit, paid directly
to Danielle, as her financial resource instead of a credit against his proportionate
share of her post-secondary education expenses. We review his claims de novo.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
The relevant portion of the trial court’s ruling provides:
The Court finds that Danielle J. Turner’s expenses for tuition
at Kirkwood College are the sum of $2,280 for two semesters; that
her expenses for rent for a year amount to $2,874; that her
expenses for automobile maintenance, automobile payment,
gasoline and insurance are $7,200 per year; that food for herself
amounts to $600 per year; that her expenses for two semesters for
books and supplies, as shown by the evidence, are approximately
$770.
Consequently, Danielle Turner’s expenses for two
semesters at Kirkwood College for the 2006-2007 school year
amount to $13,724. One-third of that amount is $4,574.66.
Consequently, each parent’s share pursuant to the provisions of
598.21 is the amount of $2,287.33.
The Court finds based upon Danielle Turner’s financial
resources, she has at her disposal the sum of $805 per month in
VA benefits for the nine months she is attending school in the two
semesters of the 2006-2007 school year, for a total of $7,245. She
also has a FED Stafford loan, which must be repaid, in the amount
of $1,313 per semester. The total amount of these funds, available
to Danielle Turner, are $9,845.
We initially note that there is no dispute over the trial court’s findings concerning
the amount of Danielle’s educational expenses or her entitlement to a subsidy for
those expenses as provided in Iowa Code section 598.21(5A) (2005).
The
dispositive question is whether Gary should receive a credit against his share of
those expenses for the amount of Veterans’ Disability Education Benefits paid
directly to Danielle.
3
Although we find no controlling authority addressing Veterans’ Disability
Education Benefits, our supreme court has held that Social Security Disability or
retirement benefits paid directly to a child are counted as parental income and
credited against the parent’s child support obligations. In re Marriage of Hilmo,
623 N.W.2d 809, 813 (Iowa 2001).
The court’s stated rationale for income
attribution and credit was that the right to the benefit was earned by and
otherwise derives from the disabled parent. Id. In the absence of any authority
to the contrary, we find the same rationale requires the amount of Veterans’
Disability Education Benefit paid directly to Danielle should be counted as
income to Gary and credited against his share of Danielle’s post-secondary
education expenses.
We accordingly affirm the portions of the trial court’s ruling determining the
amount of Danielle’s post-secondary education expenses and her entitlement to
a post-secondary education subsidy from her parents. We reverse the portion of
the trial court’s ruling establishing the parties’ proportionate share of Danielle’s
post-secondary expenses.
We additionally remand the issue concerning the
amount of each party’s proportionate share of Danielle’s post-secondary
education expenses.
The trial court, in conformity with the foregoing, shall
attribute as income to Gary, rather than Danielle, the amount of Veterans’
Disability Education Benefits paid directly to Danielle, and Gary shall receive a
credit for the amount of those benefits against his proportionate share of
Danielle’s post-secondary education expenses.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
All judges concur except Sackett, C.J., who concurs specially without
opinion.
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.
