IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE BITTNER AND JEFFREY BITTNER Upon the Petition of MICHELLE BITTNER, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning JEFFREY BITTNER, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-211 / 07-1868
Filed April 22, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE BITTNER AND JEFFREY BITTNER
Upon the Petition of
MICHELLE BITTNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
JEFFREY BITTNER,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Margaret K,
Lingreen, Judge.
A parent with physical care of the parties’ children appeals from an Iowa
Code chapter 252H (2007) judicial order for adjustment of the other parent’s child
support obligation. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Michelle Bittner, Marion, appellant pro se.
Jeffrey Bittner, Garnavillo, appellee pro se.
Cheri Damante Cummings, Waterloo, for Child Support Recovery Unit.
Considered by Miller, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
The marriage of Michelle and Jeffrey Bittner was dissolved by a May 1,
2003 decree. The decree, among other things, ordered joint legal custody of the
parties’ three children, placed the children in Michelle’s physical care, and
ordered Jeffrey to pay child support. Following numerous intervening contempt
and modification of support proceedings, the district court held a hearing on
September 18, 2007, concerning Jeffrey’s support obligation.
In a resulting
September 19, 2007 “252H Judicial Order for Adjustment of a Support
Obligation” the district court set Jeffrey’s obligation to support the three children
at $655 per month.
On November 6, 2007, Michelle served and filed what we construe as a
notice of appeal. In it she states that “[t]he last date pertaining to this was on the
16 day of October, 2007.”
With certain exceptions that have no application in this case, appeals to
our supreme court
must be taken within . . . 30 days from the entry of the order,
judgment, or decree, unless a motion for a new trial or judgment
notwithstanding the verdict . . . or a motion as provided in Iowa R.
Civ. P. 1.904(2) [motion for enlarged or amended findings and
conclusions and modified or substituted judgment or decree], is
filed, and then within 30 days after the entry of the ruling on such
motion.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.5(1); Fed. Am. Int’l, Inc. v. Om Namah Shiva, Inc., 657 N.W.2d
481, 483 (Iowa 2003).
Only two events in this case occurred between the district court’s
September 19, 2007 order and Michelle’s November 5, 2007 notice of appeal.
3
On September 28 an Assistant Attorney General for Iowa’s Child Support
Recovery Unit filed an “Application for Order Nunc Pro Tunc,” seeking correction
of a typographical error in the effective date of the order (the typographical error
provided that the order would be effective October 12, 2006, rather than October
12, 2007) and correction of the district court case number. On October 16 the
court made the requested corrections.
The State’s application for a nunc pro tunc order is not one of only three
types of post-trial motions that will extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
Fed. Am. Int’l, Inc., 657 N.W.2d at 483.
We conclude Michelle’s appeal is
untimely, we are without jurisdiction of the appeal, and the appeal must be
dismissed. See id. at 485.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
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.
