IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELANIE A. BRUCE AND CHRIS R. BRUCE Upon the Petition of MELANIE A. BRUCE, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning CHRIS R. BRUCE, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-964 / 09-0183
Filed December 30, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELANIE A. BRUCE
AND CHRIS R. BRUCE
Upon the Petition of
MELANIE A. BRUCE,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
CHRIS R. BRUCE,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John
Bauercamper, Judge.
Chris Bruce appeals from the district court’s refusal to modify his child
support obligation. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey L. Swartz of Jacobson, Bristol, Garrett & Swartz, Waukon, for
appellant.
Melanie Bruce, Lansing, pro se.
Onita Mohr, Decorah, for intervene Child Support Recovery Unit.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
2
DANILSON, J.
Chris Bruce appeals the district court’s refusal to modify his child support
obligation. He argues the district court erred when it determined he failed to
show a material and substantial change in circumstances to justify a reduction in
his child support obligation. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Chris and Melanie were married in May 1995 and have two children, born
in January 1996 and May 2000. At the time the parties’ marriage was dissolved
in April 2006, Chris was thirty-eight years old and Melanie was thirty-nine years
old. Chris was a bartender/manager of a local restaurant earning $10.75 per
hour, and was also self-employed in extra jobs, including logging and selling
firewood.
Chris’s annual income was $27,110.
Melanie was employed at
Cabela’s earning $13.00 per hour, with an annual income of $27,040. Melanie
provided medical insurance for the children for $242.66 a month.
The marriage was dissolved by a decree entered in April 2006. Chris was
ordered to pay child support in the amount of $565 per month. No alimony was
awarded. A partial stipulation was filed, resolving the issues of physical care and
visitation. Melanie received physical care of the children, and Chris was awarded
liberal visitation.
Subsequent to the dissolution, Melanie retained the same job and
continued to earn approximately the same annual income.
However, Chris’s
income consistently decreased. His annual income was $26,239 in 2006, and
$23,033 in 2007.
On July 31, 2008, Chris was laid off from his job as
bartender/manager, and began collecting unemployment benefits in the amount
3
of $286 per week. In August 2008, the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU)
estimated Chris’s annual income in 2008 to be $23,436.1
At Chris’s request, in September 2008, CSRU filed a request for a hearing
for modification of his child support obligation. After a modification hearing in
January 2009, the district court determined that a substantial and material
change in circumstance had not occurred. As the court stated, Chris’s “loss of
employment appears to be a temporary matter and he has not shown sufficient
efforts to obtain employment and live within his means.” Chris filed a motion for
enlarged or amended findings, which the court denied. He now appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review the modification of a dissolution decree de novo. Iowa R. App.
P. 6.907 (2009); In re Marriage of McCurnin, 681 N.W.2d 322, 327 (Iowa 2004).
We give weight to the district court’s fact findings, especially when we consider
witness credibility, but we are not bound by those findings. Iowa R. App. P.
6.907; McCurnin, 681 N.W.2d at 327.
The district court has reasonable
discretion in determining whether modification is warranted and we will not
disturb that discretion on appeal unless there is a failure to do equity.
In re
Marriage of Walters, 575 N.W.2d 739, 741 (Iowa 1998). Prior cases have little
precedential value, and we must base our decision on the facts and
circumstances unique to the parties before us. In re Marriage of Kleist, 538
N.W.2d 273, 276 (Iowa 1995). Our primary concern is the best interests of the
children. Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988).
1
This estimation was based on Chris’s prior earnings, not his unemployment
benefits. In his brief to this court, Chris alleges his annual income in 2008 was slightly
more than $21,000.
4
III. Merits.
Chris argues the court erred when it determined he failed to show a
material and substantial change in circumstances to justify a reduction in his child
support obligation. He contends his income dropped 17.4% from 2006 to 2007
(from $26,239 in 2006, to $23,033 in 2007). Chris further contends that after he
got laid off in July 2008, his income for 2008 was slightly more than $21,000. At
the modification hearing, however, Chris requested the court to use his income
figures from his last period of employment (approximately $23,400) to determine
his 2008 child support obligations. Using those figures, he contends the court
erred in failing to find that his child support obligation should be reduced from
$565 per month to $482.33 per month.
The provisions of a dissolution decree may be modified when there has
been a substantial change in circumstances. See Iowa Code § 598.21C(1)
(2009). “However, not every change in circumstances constitutes a sufficient
basis for modification.” In re Marriage of Chmelicek, 480 N.W.2d 571, 574 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1991). A substantial change of circumstances for modifying a child
support obligation “exists when the court order for child support varies by ten
percent or more from the amount which would be due pursuant to the most
current child support guidelines. . . .”2 Iowa Code § 598.21C(2)(a).
2
We note, however, that the administrative rules promulgated by the Iowa
Department of Human Services under section 252B.5(7) to implement its duty to review
requests to modify support obligations provide that “[p]rocedures to adjust the support
obligation shall be initiated only when the financial and other information available . . .
indicates that the: (1) Present child support obligation varies from the . . . guidelines by
more than twenty percent.”
5
We do not dispute that Chris’s income has decreased, and Melanie did not
submit a brief on appeal or otherwise introduce evidence to this court arguing to
contrary. Upon our finding that Chris’s loss of employment was involuntary, we
determine there has been a change in circumstances. We must now review
whether the change was substantial so as to justify a reduction in Chris’s child
support obligations.
As the district court noted:
Chris is 41 years old, a high school graduate, and in good
health. He has worked as a mechanic, owns mechanic’s tools
which he values at $11,000.00, and has worked the last several
years as the manager of several bar/restaurants in the area. He
also works part-time cutting and selling firewood, and hauling and
selling scrap metal. He has had no employment for wages since
his lay-off last summer. He testified that he has been looking for
work, but has not found employment. No details were provided
regarding his efforts to obtain employment. No verification was
provided regarding his 2008 earnings.
In August of 2008 after his layoff, Chris purchased a new
Harley Davidson motorcycle for over $16,000 on credit, with no
money down. He has made only one payment on it. He has some
bank loans in deferral status, has used up his savings, and has
accumulated some credit card debt.
....
The court is not satisfied that a substantial change in
circumstances has occurred since the last child support order
sufficient to justify a reduction in support. Respondent’s loss of
employment appears to be a temporary matter and he has not
shown sufficient efforts to obtain employment and live within his
means.
Not every change in circumstances constitutes a sufficient basis for
modification. In re Marriage of Flattery, 537 N.W.2d 801, 803 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995).
Chris had the burden to establish his change in circumstances was
permanent and not temporary. See id. Upon our review, we conclude Chris
failed to demonstrate he could not obtain employment which would provide him
6
with a level of salary comparable to that which he received when the child
support obligation was entered in 2006. Chris has valuable work experience in
several different areas of employment, and did not present adequate evidence
that his lack of employment was permanent.
Further, we find it important to note that a month after he was laid off,
Chris purchased a Harley Davidson motorcycle for over $18,000 on credit. On
the credit application Chris filled out on August 29, 2008, for the motorcycle, he
alleged he was self-employed and had an annual gross income of $30,000. At
the same time, Chris informed CSRU and the court (for child support purposes)
that his gross income consisted of his unemployment income and was slightly
more than $21,000 annually.
Under these circumstances, it was appropriate for the court to rely on
Chris’s earning capacity (as demonstrated by his salary while employed in 2006)
in declining to modify his child support obligation. We affirm the court’s ruling in
this case.
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.
