No. 5-479 / 04-2076Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 27, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, J. Hobart Darbyshire, Judge.
Brett Edens appeals a district court’s ruling ordering him to contribute $4,100 annually to his son’s postsecondary educational expenses. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Farwell, Clinton, for appellant.
Gary Rolfes of Mayer, Lonergan Rolfes, Clinton, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Alisa and Brett Edens divorced after having two children. The dissolution decree authorized, but did not specify, the amount of postsecondary education support. A subsequent modification order “reserved” this issue.
The parties’ older child, Suton, decided to attend St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa, beginning in 2004. When Brett declined to pay anything toward Suton’s college education, Alisa applied for an order establishing the amount of Brett’s postsecondary support obligation. Following a hearing, the district court ordered Brett to contribute $4,100 for the 2004-05 academic year.
Brett appealed. He asserts (1) he should not have to pay a postsecondary education subsidy because he “was not consulted with regard to the child’s choice in which school to attend” and (2) “the level of post secondary education subsidy is unreasonable.” Our review of these issues is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
I.
Iowa Code section 598.21(5A) (2003)states that a court may order a postsecondary subsidy if good cause is shown. The statute further provides that such a subsidy “shall not be awarded if the child has repudiated the parent by publicly disowning the parent, refusing to acknowledge the parent, or by acting in a similar manner.” Iowa Code § 598.21(5A) (c). Brett claims this provision “should be expanded to include children who show no consideration for the financial position or wishes of their parents.” As a legal matter, we decline to judicially expand the scope of this provision. As a factual matter, we are not persuaded that Suton ignored his father’s concerns, as contended. When Brett was asked if he tried to get Suton to look at a public school, Brett answered, “I don’t think I even said anything about — honestly, I can’t remember if I said anything about going to, like, Clinton Community or not to him.” Although Brett did tell his son he could not afford to pay for college, that statement raises a different concern, whether Brett’s financial condition should absolve him of any obligation to subsidize Suton’s education. We will address this concern next.
II.
A court is to consider a parent’s financial condition in determining whether good cause exists for ordering a post secondary education subsidy. Iowa Code § 598.21(5A) (a); In re Marriage of Neff, 675 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Iowa 2004).
The district court found, and Brett does not dispute, that he earned approximately $30,000 annually. According to his affidavit of financial status, this translated into net monthly income of $1,937. Brett listed personal support expenses of $2,850 per month. In addition, he had installment payments for cars and credit cards totaling approximately $1,100 per month. His estimates of monthly expenses, therefore, exceeded his net monthly income.
Despite Brett’s limited financial means, we conclude he could contribute something to his son’s college education. Cf. Neff, 675 N.W.2d at 578-79 (finding good cause for modest postsecondary education subsidy where parent had adjusted gross income of $23,171 and disposable income of approximately $12,500). Alisa was in similar financial straits but was able to obtain a federal parent PLUS loan of $4,100 per semester to assist with Suton’s college education. Brett had not inquired into obtaining such a loan.
We turn to the amount the district court ordered Brett to contribute. The amount is determined by calculating the cost of postsecondary education, subtracting what the child can be expected to contribute, and apportioning the balance between each parent. Iowa Code § 598.21(5A) (a) (1), (2), (3). This apportioned figure cannot exceed thirty-three and one-third percent of the total postsecondary education cost. Id. §598.21(5A) (3).
Brett notes that the total cost of attending St. Ambrose University “represents 80 percent of Brett’s annual gross income.” While true, this statement does not account for the fact that approximately $16,000 of the $24,000 in total annual costs was covered by student loans and grants. As the district court found, the balance amounted to less than $8,000 annually. Half of this sum was substantially less than one-third of the total cost at a State university.[1] We conclude the court acted equitably in ordering Brett to provide a subsidy of $4,100 for the 2004-05 academic year.
AFFIRMED.