IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1243 Filed July 24, 2024
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACK ANDREW SHILKAITIS AND MARIE ELISABETH SHILKAITIS
Upon the Petition of JACK ANDREW SHILKAITIS, Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning MARIE ELISABETH SHILKAITIS, n/k/a MARIE ELISABETH STUART, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.
A parent appeals the district court’s ruling modifying the terms of child
support contained in her dissolution decree. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED
IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.
Elizabeth Kellner-Nelson of Kellner-Nelson Law Firm, P.C., West Des
Moines, for appellant.
Debra Hockett-Clark of Hope Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. 2
AHLERS, Judge.
Marie Stuart and Jack Shilkaitis married in 2010 and divorced in 2018. They
have one child together, born in 2014. Their stipulated divorce decree gave the
parties joint legal custody of the child and placed physical care with Marie. The
decree also required Jack to pay $380 per month of child support to Marie.1 The
decree also required Marie to provide medical support, which she does by
maintaining health insurance on the child.
In 2021, Marie filed this action seeking to modify Jack’s visitation schedule
and increase his child-support obligation. Jack filed a counterclaim seeking
physical care of the child. Following a trial and a post-trial motion, the district court
denied Marie’s proposed modification of Jack’s visitation rights, dismissed Jack’s
counterclaim, and increased Jack’s child support to $434.27 per month effective
July 1, 2023. Marie appeals, challenging only the part of the ruling addressing
child support. She contends the court ignored several details in calculating Jack’s
child-support obligation that should make his child-support obligation higher. She
also contends the increase in child support should be retroactive to an earlier date.
Jack did not cross-appeal.
I. Amount of Child Support
We review child-support-modification rulings de novo. In re Marriage of
Walters, 575 N.W.2d 739, 740 (Iowa 1998). We only disturb the district court’s
ruling when there is a failure to do equity. Id. at 741.
1 The decree set Jack’s initial child support obligation at $400 per month but lowered it to $380 starting August 1, 2019. As $380 per month is Jack’s current monthly child support obligation, we refer to that figure. 3
Iowa Code section 598.21C(1) (2021) allows the court to modify child
support when a substantial change in circumstances exists. There is a per se
substantial change of circumstances when the child support order “varies by ten
percent or more from the amount” that would be due under the child support
guidelines. Iowa Code § 598.21C(2)(a). Here, the court found $434.27 per month
to be the correct amount of child support under the guidelines, which is more than
a ten percent change from the original decreed amount of $380.00, so per se
grounds for modification were established if the $434.27 figure is accurate. But,
while Marie agrees there has been a per se change of circumstances, she
contends Jack’s monthly child support obligation should be higher than $434.27.
Marie claims the court miscalculated Jack’s child support obligation because it
failed to factor in (1) Jack’s tax filing status as married rather than single; (2) the
cost of the health insurance premiums Marie pays for the child; (3) the tax
consequences stemming from the fact the parties alternate the right to claim the
child as a dependent on their tax returns; and (4) the fact that Jack has two
qualified additional dependents, not just one.
Jack concedes that the court should have, but did not, factor in his marital
status, the fact the parties alternate the right to claim the child as a dependent on
their tax returns, and the correct number of qualified additional dependents Jack
has. As to the cost of the health insurance premiums, however, Jack contends
Marie is not entitled to a deduction for that cost because the premium she pays is
not reasonable. See id. § 252E.1A(3) (requiring the court to order a party to carry
health insurance if the coverage is available at a reasonable cost); Iowa Ct. R. 9.12
(setting rules for determining whether the cost of medical support is reasonable). 4
He contends he provides health insurance for the child and when the cost of the
insurance is deducted from his income, any increase in his child support obligation
would be less than ten percent from the current amount he owes, so there is no
substantial change of circumstances. As such, Jack contends that the court’s
order modifying his child-support obligation should be reversed.
We reject Jack’s arguments for several reasons. First, the original decree
requires Marie to provide the medical insurance. In this action, Jack never sought
to modify that provision, so it is not an issue before us on this appeal. Second,
Jack did not file a cross-appeal challenging the district court’s ruling raising his
child support obligation. Because he did not file a cross-appeal, he cannot receive
a more favorable result on appeal. See Anthony v. State, 374 N.W.2d 662, 664
(Iowa 1985) (noting that a party that does not file a cross appeal is precluded from
obtaining a more favorable result on appeal).
Because Jack concedes—and we find—that the other factors should have
been accounted for, we only address in detail whether the district court overlooked
the premiums Marie pays for the child’s health insurance, as she is required to do
by the original stipulated decree. The child support worksheet the district court
attached to its ruling in this modification action credits neither party for the cost of
the child’s medical insurance.2 The child support guidelines call for factoring in a
parent’s payment of the child’s health insurance premiums when the parent is
ordered to pay for the child’s health insurance, as Marie is ordered to do via the
2 We note that the worksheets include a deduction for cash medical support for
Jack. The basis for that deduction for Jack is unclear. We leave it to the district court to properly account for medical support deductions on remand, with or without input from the parties as the district court deems appropriate. 5
original stipulated decree. See Iowa Ct. R. 9.14(2); (5)(a). The district court should
have deducted the cost of the child’s health insurance from Marie’s income in
calculating child support.
We reverse the district court’s order modifying Jack’s child support
obligation. We remand to the district court to recalculate child support using the
same income figures for both parties previously used by the district court, but we
direct the court to properly account for Jack’s marital status, the fact that the parties
alternate claiming the child as a dependent on their tax returns, the proper number
of qualified additional dependents, and Marie’s payment of the child’s medical
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1243 Filed July 24, 2024
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACK ANDREW SHILKAITIS AND MARIE ELISABETH SHILKAITIS
Upon the Petition of JACK ANDREW SHILKAITIS, Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning MARIE ELISABETH SHILKAITIS, n/k/a MARIE ELISABETH STUART, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.
A parent appeals the district court’s ruling modifying the terms of child
support contained in her dissolution decree. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED
IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.
Elizabeth Kellner-Nelson of Kellner-Nelson Law Firm, P.C., West Des
Moines, for appellant.
Debra Hockett-Clark of Hope Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. 2
AHLERS, Judge.
Marie Stuart and Jack Shilkaitis married in 2010 and divorced in 2018. They
have one child together, born in 2014. Their stipulated divorce decree gave the
parties joint legal custody of the child and placed physical care with Marie. The
decree also required Jack to pay $380 per month of child support to Marie.1 The
decree also required Marie to provide medical support, which she does by
maintaining health insurance on the child.
In 2021, Marie filed this action seeking to modify Jack’s visitation schedule
and increase his child-support obligation. Jack filed a counterclaim seeking
physical care of the child. Following a trial and a post-trial motion, the district court
denied Marie’s proposed modification of Jack’s visitation rights, dismissed Jack’s
counterclaim, and increased Jack’s child support to $434.27 per month effective
July 1, 2023. Marie appeals, challenging only the part of the ruling addressing
child support. She contends the court ignored several details in calculating Jack’s
child-support obligation that should make his child-support obligation higher. She
also contends the increase in child support should be retroactive to an earlier date.
Jack did not cross-appeal.
I. Amount of Child Support
We review child-support-modification rulings de novo. In re Marriage of
Walters, 575 N.W.2d 739, 740 (Iowa 1998). We only disturb the district court’s
ruling when there is a failure to do equity. Id. at 741.
1 The decree set Jack’s initial child support obligation at $400 per month but lowered it to $380 starting August 1, 2019. As $380 per month is Jack’s current monthly child support obligation, we refer to that figure. 3
Iowa Code section 598.21C(1) (2021) allows the court to modify child
support when a substantial change in circumstances exists. There is a per se
substantial change of circumstances when the child support order “varies by ten
percent or more from the amount” that would be due under the child support
guidelines. Iowa Code § 598.21C(2)(a). Here, the court found $434.27 per month
to be the correct amount of child support under the guidelines, which is more than
a ten percent change from the original decreed amount of $380.00, so per se
grounds for modification were established if the $434.27 figure is accurate. But,
while Marie agrees there has been a per se change of circumstances, she
contends Jack’s monthly child support obligation should be higher than $434.27.
Marie claims the court miscalculated Jack’s child support obligation because it
failed to factor in (1) Jack’s tax filing status as married rather than single; (2) the
cost of the health insurance premiums Marie pays for the child; (3) the tax
consequences stemming from the fact the parties alternate the right to claim the
child as a dependent on their tax returns; and (4) the fact that Jack has two
qualified additional dependents, not just one.
Jack concedes that the court should have, but did not, factor in his marital
status, the fact the parties alternate the right to claim the child as a dependent on
their tax returns, and the correct number of qualified additional dependents Jack
has. As to the cost of the health insurance premiums, however, Jack contends
Marie is not entitled to a deduction for that cost because the premium she pays is
not reasonable. See id. § 252E.1A(3) (requiring the court to order a party to carry
health insurance if the coverage is available at a reasonable cost); Iowa Ct. R. 9.12
(setting rules for determining whether the cost of medical support is reasonable). 4
He contends he provides health insurance for the child and when the cost of the
insurance is deducted from his income, any increase in his child support obligation
would be less than ten percent from the current amount he owes, so there is no
substantial change of circumstances. As such, Jack contends that the court’s
order modifying his child-support obligation should be reversed.
We reject Jack’s arguments for several reasons. First, the original decree
requires Marie to provide the medical insurance. In this action, Jack never sought
to modify that provision, so it is not an issue before us on this appeal. Second,
Jack did not file a cross-appeal challenging the district court’s ruling raising his
child support obligation. Because he did not file a cross-appeal, he cannot receive
a more favorable result on appeal. See Anthony v. State, 374 N.W.2d 662, 664
(Iowa 1985) (noting that a party that does not file a cross appeal is precluded from
obtaining a more favorable result on appeal).
Because Jack concedes—and we find—that the other factors should have
been accounted for, we only address in detail whether the district court overlooked
the premiums Marie pays for the child’s health insurance, as she is required to do
by the original stipulated decree. The child support worksheet the district court
attached to its ruling in this modification action credits neither party for the cost of
the child’s medical insurance.2 The child support guidelines call for factoring in a
parent’s payment of the child’s health insurance premiums when the parent is
ordered to pay for the child’s health insurance, as Marie is ordered to do via the
2 We note that the worksheets include a deduction for cash medical support for
Jack. The basis for that deduction for Jack is unclear. We leave it to the district court to properly account for medical support deductions on remand, with or without input from the parties as the district court deems appropriate. 5
original stipulated decree. See Iowa Ct. R. 9.14(2); (5)(a). The district court should
have deducted the cost of the child’s health insurance from Marie’s income in
calculating child support.
We reverse the district court’s order modifying Jack’s child support
obligation. We remand to the district court to recalculate child support using the
same income figures for both parties previously used by the district court, but we
direct the court to properly account for Jack’s marital status, the fact that the parties
alternate claiming the child as a dependent on their tax returns, the proper number
of qualified additional dependents, and Marie’s payment of the child’s medical
insurance premiums.
II. Retroactivity of Child Support
Marie filed this modification action in August 2021, and Jack’s acceptance
of service of original notice was filed October 15, 2021. Marie contends that any
increase in Jack’s child-support obligation should have been retroactive to
February 1, 2022, or May 1, 2023, rather than July 1, 2023.
Iowa Code section 598.21C(5) gives the court discretion to make child
support retroactive to three months after service of original notice of the
modification action. However, the option to make child support retroactive is not
mandatory; it is within the district court’s discretion to make the modified child-
support obligation effective as of the date of the modification order. In re Marriage
of Ober, 538 N.W.2d 310, 313 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). In this case, three months
after original notice of the modification action was served on Jack was January 15,
2022, which would have made his first payment with the increased amount due
February 1, 2022 if the court had made the obligation retroactive. But the district 6
court had no obligation to make the increase in child support retroactive. See id.
The district court exercised its discretion to make the increase in child support
effective July 1, 2023—the same month in which the court issued the order
increasing Jack’s child support obligation. We find no abuse of the district court’s
discretion in not making the increase retroactive. Accordingly, we reject Marie’s
challenge to the effective date of the increase.
III. Conclusion
Because the district court failed to properly account for various deductions
for both parties in calculating child support, we reverse the ruling ordering Jack to
pay $434.27 per month and remand for recalculation of child support as explained
in this opinion. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
Jack’s new support obligation to begin on July 1, 2023, we affirm the part of the
court’s order setting that date as the start of the new support obligation.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR
RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.