IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHERRI JAYNE KNUTSON AND KELLY ARTHUR KNUTSON Upon the Petition of SHERRI JAYNE KNUTSON, n/k/a SHERRI JAYNE BRINEY, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning KELLY ARTHUR KNUTSON, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-300 / 08-1783
Filed July 2, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHERRI JAYNE KNUTSON
AND KELLY ARTHUR KNUTSON
Upon the Petition of
SHERRI JAYNE KNUTSON,
n/k/a SHERRI JAYNE BRINEY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
KELLY ARTHUR KNUTSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Darrell J.
Goodhue, Judge.
Respondent appeals the district court order setting a postsecondary
education subsidy for the parties’ minor child. AFFIRMED.
Kelly A. Knutson, Truro, appellant pro se.
G. Stephen Walters of Jordan, Oliver & Walters, P.C., Winterset, for
appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
ROBINSON, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Kelly Knutson and Sherri Briney were divorced on April 22, 2002. On May
19, 2008, Kelly filed an application seeking to modify the parties’ dissolution
decree to provide for a postsecondary education subsidy for one of the parties’
children, Amanda.
A hearing on the matter was held on August 26, 2008. Amanda had been
accepted at Coe College, and the estimated annual expense for the 2008-09
school year was $35,310. Amanda was expected to receive scholarships and
grants of $25,100, leaving remaining costs of $10,410.
The parties both
indicated they were willing to contribute one-half of this amount, or $5205, for
Amanda’s college expenses.
The district court ordered each parent to pay $5205 per year as a
postsecondary education subsidy, for four consecutive academic years.
The
court ordered Kelly to pay this amount in $433.75 monthly installments through
the Madison County Clerk of Court.
Sherri was ordered to provide health
insurance for Amanda, and medical expenses not covered by the insurance were
to be divided equally between the parties.
Kelly filed a post-trial motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure
1.904(2). The court further explained its reasoning, but did not modify its ruling.
Kelly appeals the decision of the district court.
3
II.
Standard of Review
This modification action was tried in equity, and our review is de novo.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In modification actions, the district court has reasonable
discretion in determining whether to modify a dissolution decree, and that
discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a failure to do equity. In
re Marriage of Vetternack, 334 N.W.2d 761, 762 (Iowa 1983); In re Marriage of
Kern, 408 N.W.2d 387, 389 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987).
III.
Merits
A.
Kelly contends the district court should have included transportation
costs and personal expenditures in calculating Amanda’s college expenses.
Generally, a postsecondary education subsidy is calculated by determining the
cost of attending an in-state public institution, including reasonable expenses,1
subtracting the amount the child may reasonably be expected to contribute, and
the remaining cost is apportioned to the parents. See Iowa Code § 598.21F(2)
(2007); In re Marriage of Neff, 675 N.W.2d 573, 579 (Iowa 2004).
This formula was not used in the present case, however, because the
parents agreed to pay more than the formula would have provided.2 Parents
may agree to pay more than that required by section 598.21F(2) for the
postsecondary education expenses of their children.
Rosenfeld, 668 N.W.2d 840, 848 (Iowa 2003).
In re Marriage of
The issue of whether
transportation and personal expenses should have been included in determining
1
Reasonable costs for necessary postsecondary education expenses include more
than tuition, books, and room and board. In re Marriage of Vannausdle, 668 N.W.2d
885, 889 (Iowa 2003).
2
Amanda’s expected financial resources exceeded the cost of attending an in-state
public institution.
4
the cost of Amanda’s postsecondary education is irrelevant because the formula
found in section 598.21F(2) was not used in this case to determine the amount of
the subsidy.
B.
Section 598.21F(2)(c) provides, “The amount paid by each parent
shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third percent of the total cost of
postsecondary education.” Kelly states that if Amanda had decided to attend
Iowa State University, her total costs would be $17,700, and one-third of this
amount is $5900. He asserts that each parent should be required to pay $5900
per year for Amanda’s college expenses. Section 598.21F(2)(c) sets forth a
maximum amount each parent could be required to pay. The district court may
order each parent to pay less than this amount. See Neff, 675 N.W.2d at 579.
C.
Section 598.21F(5) provides:
Unless otherwise specified by the parties, a postsecondary
education subsidy awarded by the court shall be terminated upon
the child’s completion of the first calendar year of course instruction
if the child fails to maintain a cumulative grade point average in the
median range or above during that first calendar year.
Kelly demurs to the modification order because it does not follow this language,
but instead provides that Amanda must maintain “a cumulative grade point
average that is at least in the median range for each semester.” Kelly proposed
a Stipulated Order for Postsecondary Education Subsidy that contained the
language he now objects to. We conclude the district court properly included this
language in the modification order.
D.
Kelly also objects to the district court’s order that he make his
payments through the clerk of court.
He points out that under section
5
598.21F(3), “A postsecondary education subsidy shall be payable to the child, to
the educational institution, or to both, but shall not be payable to the custodial
parent.”
There was testimony at the modification hearing that Kelly had made
payments for vehicles owned by Amanda, and wanted these credited as
payments for postsecondary education. The district court reasonably determined
that to avoid disputes as to what had been paid and what had not been paid, and
whether these payments should be credited to Kelly as payments for Amanda’s
college expenses, Kelly would be required to make payments to the clerk of
court, and the clerk would then pay the money to Amanda. Under the specific
facts of this case, we determine the district court properly required Kelly to make
payments through the clerk of court.
IV.
Attorney Fees
Sherri seeks attorney fees for this appeal. An award of attorney fees is
not a matter of right, but rests within the court’s discretion. In re Marriage of
Romanelli, 570 N.W.2d 761, 767 (Iowa 1997).
On a request for appellate
attorney fees, we consider the needs of the party making the request, the ability
of the other party to pay, and whether the party was required to defend the
district court’s decision on appeal. In re Marriage of Wood, 567 N.W.2d 680, 684
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997). We determine Kelly should pay $1500 toward Sherri’s
appellate attorney fees.
6
After considering all arguments made in Kelly’s pro se appeal, we affirm
the decision of the district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Kelly.
AFFIRMED.
Miller, J. concurs; Sackett, C.J. concurs in part and dissents in part.
7
SACKETT, C.J. (concurs in part and dissents in part)
I concur in all respects except I would modify to provide the payment be
made to the child or the school in accordance with the statute.
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.
