IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1344
Filed April 19, 2017
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE MARIE WATKINS
AND CLIFFORD JAMES WATKINS III
Upon the Petition of
MICHELLE MARIE WATKINS,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
CLIFFORD JAMES WATKINS III,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter,
Judge.
Respondent appeals the district court decision modifying his child support
obligation. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Christopher R. Kemp of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, and David A. Morse
of Law Offices of David A. Morse, Des Moines, for appellant.
Jason S. Rieper of Rieper Law, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Clifford Watkins III appeals the district court decision modifying his child
support obligation. We find the district court improperly calculated the amount
Clifford was required to pay in child support. Under the child support guidelines,
Clifford should be required to pay $740.93 per month. We affirm the decision of
the district court as modified.
Clifford and Michelle Watkins were previously married. They have one
child, born in 1998.1 The parties’ dissolution decree, filed on September 16,
2013, granted the parties joint legal custody of the child, with Michelle having
physical care. At the time of the dissolution, Michelle had a gross annual income
of $28,730 and Clifford had a gross annual income of $56,448. Clifford was
ordered to pay child support of $635 per month.
On October 12, 2015, Michelle filed an application for modification of
Clifford’s child support obligation. She claimed Clifford’s income had
substantially increased since the time of the dissolution decree. The district court
entered a decision finding Clifford had a gross annual income of $69,245 and
Michelle had a gross annual income of $32,854. The court concluded under the
child support guidelines Clifford should pay $1019 per month.
Clifford appealed the district court’s decision.2 He does not challenge the
finding there was a substantial change in circumstances. Clifford claims the
1
The child became eighteen years old in September 2016. Under the original decree,
Clifford was responsible to pay child support until the child became eighteen or
graduated from high school, but no later than when the child turned nineteen years old.
At the time of the modification hearing, in May 2016, the child was seventeen years old
and attending high school.
2
Michelle waived filing an appellate brief in this case.
3
district court improperly calculated the amount of his child support obligation. In
this equitable action, our review is de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.
In calculating the support obligation, the court considered Clifford’s base
pay, longevity pay, and overtime pay, and found this amount to be $69,345.56.
The amount of overtime pay was found to be $2855.76. In calculating Clifford’s
child support, the court found his gross annual income, not including overtime,
was $69,245. Clifford is paid $30.50 per hour in regular pay, plus $1.47 per hour
in longevity pay, giving him a gross annual income of $66,497, without overtime
pay. We determine Clifford’s child support obligation should be based on his
income without overtime. While Clifford sometimes worked overtime, he testified
he usually received compensated time off (comp time) rather than payment for
overtime.
Clifford also claims the district court improperly applied the child support
guidelines. The court did not include its calculations to show how it arrived at the
conclusion Clifford should pay child support of $1019 per month, and the amount
is not based on the parties’ child support worksheets. We accept Clifford’s
calculations showing his child support should be $740.93 per month.
We find the district court improperly calculated the amount Clifford was
required to pay in child support. Under the child support guidelines, Clifford
should be required to pay $740.93 per month. We affirm the decision of the
district court as modified in this memorandum opinion, pursuant to Iowa Court
Rule 21.26(a), (e).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.