In re The Marriage of Reinking ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1087
Filed August 31, 2022
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LORI REINKING,
AND JEFFERY REINKING
Upon the Petition of
LORI REINKING, n/k/a LORI THRONDSON,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
JEFFERY REINKING,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Alan T. Heavens,
Judge.
Jeffery Reinking appeals the district court order quashing the execution
against Lori Throndson for unpaid support payments. AFFIRMED.
Christopher F. O’Donohoe of Elwood, O’Donohoe, Braun & White, LLP,
New Hampton, for appellant.
Danielle M. Ellingson of Eggert, Erb & Ellingson, P.L.C., Charles City, for
appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
We are asked to decide whether a stipulation requiring one parent to pay
money into an account for the benefit of a child created a judgment that the other
parent could enforce through execution.
The stage was set as follows. Lori and Jeffery Reinking married, had one
child, and divorced after eleven years. The district court granted Lori physical care
of the child, a decision the court of appeals affirmed. See In re Marriage of
Reinking, No. 11-1585, 2012 WL 3026412, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 25, 2012).1
In time, Jeffery petitioned to modify the decree. The district court granted
the application, transferring physical care of the child to him. The court ordered
Lori to pay Jeffery $85 per month in child support as well as cash medical support
of $10 per month. The court of appeals affirmed the physical care determination.
See In re Marriage of Reinking, No. 15-0907, 2016 WL 3273465, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. June 15, 2016).
Jeffery filed a second petition to modify the dissolution decree, seeking an
increase in Lori’s child support obligation. The parents eventually stipulated to a
joint physical care arrangement and the following payment scheme:
CHILD SUPPORT: Neither party shall pay child support. In lieu of
child support, the parties shall share expenses as follows:
A. The Petitioner shall pay $300.00 per month into an
account for the benefit of the minor child. The account shall
name the child as signatory and each parent shall be entitled
to a copy of the monthly statement to ensure the parents are
apprised of the child’s use of the account.
1. $150.00 each month shall be saved for the
child’s expected future college expenses;
1 This court remanded the case for recalculation of Jeffery’s child support
obligation.
3
2. $150.00 each month may be used for the
school expenses of the child, school clothing, school
lunches, extracurricular fees, entertainment, and
related expenses.
3. No more than $50.00 shall be expended at
any time absent the consent of both parents.[2]
The district court approved the stipulation.3 That stipulation undergirds the
proceeding giving rise to this appeal.
Approximately eighteen months after Lori’s payment obligation under the
stipulation ended, Jeffery filed a request for execution against her, also known as
a praecipe. He claimed she owed $6000 in unpaid child support and ten percent
annual interest from the date of the stipulation, which he calculated to be $1549.60.
The clerk of court issued a general execution directing the sheriff to levy on Lori.
Lori applied for a stay of the judgment. She noted that “[n]o money was to
be paid directly to [Jeffery] as no child support was ordered.” She attached
documentation of more than $6000 paid into two accounts she created in the name
of herself and her son.
The district court granted Lori’s application for a temporary stay of execution
pending a hearing. Following the hearing, the court quashed the execution,
2 The “obligation to share expense[s]” was to last until the child graduated from
high school or reached nineteen years old, whichever occurred first.
3 As noted, the stipulation stated “[n]either party” would “pay child support” and the
amounts to be deposited into the account were “[i]n lieu of child support.” The
stipulation characterized the payments as “expenses.” The child support
guidelines authorize allocation of expenses in joint physical care cases. See Iowa
Ct. R. 9.14(3). But payment of expenses is not a substitute for payment of child
support. Id. (“An allocation between the parties for payment of the child(ren)’s
expenses ordered pursuant to Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(a) is an obligation in
addition to the child support amount calculated pursuant to this rule and is not child
support.”). The stipulation violated this prescript. However, the payment scheme
was approved, and no one challenged the stipulation on this ground.
4
concluding Jeffery’s execution was “fatally flawed” for a variety of reasons
notwithstanding the “insufficien[cy] [of] evidence in the record to determine whether
Lori fully complied with the Stipulation.” The court denied Jeffery’s motion to
reconsider.
On appeal, Jeffery argues the stipulation approved by the court created a
judgment for support that could be enforced by a general execution and Lori failed
to “alleg[e] and prov[e] payment of the $300.00 each month ordered.” We need
not decide whether the order approving the stipulation amounted to an enforceable
judgment.4 Nor do we need to decide whether, if the order was a judgment, it was
the type of judgment subject to enforcement by a request for execution. 5 That is
because, even if the order was a judgment, and even if it was enforceable by
execution, Lori established that she deposited the entire amount required by the
4 “When the stipulation is merged in the dissolution decree it is interpreted and
enforced as a final judgment of the court, not as a separate contract between the
parties.” In re Marriage of Lawson, 409 N.W.2d 181, 182 (Iowa 1987) (quoting
Prochelo v. Prochelo, 346 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Iowa 1984)).
5 Iowa Code section 626.1 (2022) states, “Judgments or orders requiring the
payment of money, or the delivery of the possession of property, are to be enforced
by execution.” Iowa Code sections 598.22 and 22A address the collection and
satisfaction of support payments. In Cullinan v. Cullinan, 226 N.W.2d 33, 35 (Iowa
1975), the supreme court stated, “The states are in conflict on the question of
whether arrearage in child support payments, previously decreed, must be
reduced to judgment before execution can issue.” Addressing precedent, the court
continued, “Our own cases hold a further entry of judgment is, with an exception
to be noted, unnecessary.” Id. The exception, the court said, was “when the trial
court so indicates in the decree which fixes the periodic support payments.” Id.;
cf. Walters v. Walters, 3 N.W.2d 595, 596 (Iowa 1942) (stating “a decree for
alimony is conclusive until subsequently made to appear by reason of changed
conditions that its enforcement would result in injustice”).
5
order into the joint account with her son.6 In addition to including the pertinent
bank statements, she attached the following summaries of those deposits:
Deposits–Expenses
September 25, 2017 $150.00
October 31, 2017 $150.00
December 1, 2017 $150.00
January 16, 2018 $150.00
February 7, 2018 $150.00
March 12, 2018 $300.00
April 16, 2018 $300.00
May 4, 2018 $150.00
July 12, 2018 $300.00
September 10, 2018 $100.00
November 13, 2018 $300.00
December 3, 2018 $150.00
January 18, 2019 $150.00
February 1, 2019 $150.00
February 11, 2019 $600.00
Asset Total $3250.00
Deposits–College Account
September 25, 2017 $150.00
October 2, 2017 $1000.00
October 31, 2017 $150.00
December 1, 2017 $150.00
May 4, 2018 $150.00
July 12, 2018 $300.00
September 10, 2018 $300.00
November 13, 2018 $300.00
December 3, 2018 $150.00
January 18, 2019 $150.00
February 1, 2019 $150.00
February 11, 2019 $600.00
Asset Total $3550.00
Jeffery’s evidence did not undermine these summaries. While he offered bank
statements purporting to show that Lori “withdrew money from [the child’s] account
6 Although Lori did not formally offer and admit these documents at the hearing on
the motion to stay, she asked the court to consider them, and counsel for Jeffery
did not object.
6
and deposited it into her own account,” the statements spanned a different period
of time than the dates of the payments listed by Lori. And while he claimed he set
up independent accounts into which the sums were to be deposited, the stipulation
did not preclude Lori from depositing the funds into accounts she created.
Because Lori owed no money for the stipulated expenses, Jeffery was not entitled
to have a request for execution issued against her. On our de novo review, we
conclude the district court appropriately quashed the execution.
AFFIRMED.