In re the Marriage of Balduchi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: January 10, 2024
• Docket: 23-0488
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0488 Filed January 10, 2024

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACCI LYNN BALDUCHI AND KENNETH GEORGE BALDUCHI

Upon the Petition of JACCI LYNN BALDUCHI, n/k/a JACCI LYNN MATZDORFF BALDUCHI, Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning KENNETH GEORGE BALDUCHI, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald,

Judge.

Kenneth Balduchi appeals an order denying his motion to adjust withholding

and suspension of his child support payments. AFFIRMED.

Kent A. Balduchi of Balduchi Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant.

Emily DeRonde of DeRonde Law Firm, PLLC, Johnston, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

Kenneth Balduchi appeals an order denying his motion to adjust withholding

and suspension of his child support payments. Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Kenneth Balduchi and Jacci Balduchi divorced in 2012. The dissolution

decree ordered Kenneth to pay Jacci $651.26 per month in support of their two

children, to be reduced to $432.40 per month upon the oldest child reaching the

age of eighteen. These child-support payments were withheld by his employer.

In 2021, after the oldest child reached age eighteen, Kenneth filed a motion

to reduce his payments in accordance with the original dissolution decree. The

motion was granted in August 2021 and served on Kenneth’s employer. However,

his employer “erred in implementing the order” and withheld more money than

ordered. Kenneth claimed he did not notice these errors until he received his 2021

year-end pay stub. According to Kenneth, he then informed his employer of the

error, but his employer did not begin to deduct the correct amount from his

paycheck until December 2022.

In January 2023, Kenneth filed a motion to adjust withholding and suspend

child support. Jacci resisted the motion, claiming “suspending or terminating

[Kenneth]’s child support payment . . . would cause a hardship to the minor child,”

who “still ha[s] a minimum of one year (2023–2024) wherein he is in high school

and fully supported by his parents.” Jacci further claimed, “The additional funds

received from [Kenneth] were used for the children.” For example, she had

“purchased a vehicle for the children to drive and has maintained the majority of

the care of the children.” At the time the motion was heard, Kenneth estimated his 3

overpayment to be $5449. The district court denied the motion, finding Kenneth’s

request was barred by the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel by

acquiescence. Kenneth appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review cases in equity de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. “[W]e examine

the entire record and adjudicate anew the rights on the issues properly presented.”

In re Marriage of Maher, 596 N.W.2d 561, 564 (Iowa 1999).

III. Overpayment as Credit Applied Against Decree Obligations

Kenneth first argues the district court erred in finding his situation did not

warrant an exception to the general rule barring credit for overpayment of child

support. This rule, set forth in In re Marriage of Pals, states a party who makes

voluntary payments more than those required by a dissolution decree is not entitled

to credit against payment obligations under the decree. 714 N.W.2d 644, 650

(Iowa 2006). Exceptions to this rule “are made only ‘when the equities of the

circumstances demand it and when allowing a credit will not work a hardship on

the minor children.’” Pals, 714 N.W.2d at 651 (citation omitted).

Kenneth claims since his payments were garnished from his wages, they

were not voluntary as in Pals. In Pals, the Iowa Supreme Court found, because

overpayments made were voluntarily, they could not be counted as a credit against

payments required by a dissolution decree. Id. We agree the situation presented

here is distinguishable from Pals in terms of whether the overpayment was

voluntary. Garnishment of Kenneth’s wages and the resulting overpayment cannot

be considered to be voluntary. 4

That said, Kenneth’s request for adjustment and suspension fails on other

grounds. We conclude the fighting issue in this case is whether Kenneth’s motion

is barred by the doctrine of laches. “Laches is an equitable doctrine premised on

unreasonable delay in asserting a right, which causes disadvantage or prejudice

to another.” Markey v. Carney, 705 N.W.2d 13, 22 (Iowa 2005) (citation omitted).

The party asserting laches has the burden to establish all essential elements of

the defense by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Id. (citation omitted).

Thus, Jacci must establish by clear and convincing evidence: (i) Kenneth

unreasonably delayed in asserting his right to recuperate overpayment and (ii) she

was prejudiced by the delay.

The district court found laches precluded Kenneth’s motion for adjustment

and suspension:

[H]ere, [Kenneth] waited seventeen months before he attempted to resolve the issue of his overpayment of child support. [Jacci] spent the overpaid funds on the parties’ minor child and it would not be just to require her to pay back the monies already spent. Further, it would not be just to require [Jacci] to be solely responsible for financially supporting the parties’ minor child from June 2023 until he reaches the age of majority or graduates from high school.

(Internal citation omitted.)

Upon our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s analysis.

Kenneth had access to his bi-weekly paystubs and was aware of how much was

being withheld from his paycheck. Kenneth acknowledged “the amounts that were

withheld by his employer were inconsistent, [but] he thought that the amount had

been reduced, when he looked at his pay—pay stubs, but it wasn’t abundantly

clear.” Even though the amounts deducted were inconsistent, after two paychecks

simple addition would have made Kenneth aware of the overpayment. Even after 5

realizing too much was being withheld in his year end 2021 pay stub, Kenneth still

failed to file his motion until a full year later.1 See Bohlen v. Heller, No. 14-1837,

2015 WL 6087621, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2015) (observing the father “knew

he had a child support arrearage, knew funds to satisfy the arrearage were being

deducted from his paycheck separately from his current child support obligation,”

and “he would have known the arrearage was satisfied in 2007 had he monitored

the CSRU’s withholdings,” but “he did not seek termination of the withholdings and

recoupment of the overpayment until late 2011”).

Kenneth contends his motion cannot be barred by the doctrine of laches

because Jacci benefitted from his delay. But exceptions to the general rule barring

credit for overpayment “are made only . . . ‘when allowing a credit will not work a

hardship on the minor children.’” Pals, 714 N.W.2d at 651 (citation omitted). Under

these circumstances, it would be inequitable to require Jacci to effectively repay

funds she has already spent on the children. See Bohlen, 2015 WL 6087621, at

*2 (observing “[t]he prejudice . . . was ‘obvious’: ‘Much of the money has already

been spent’”). As the court recognized in Bohlen, although a party may be unjustly

enriched, it is sometimes impossible to return the parties to the status quo. Id.

Here, “[Kenneth]’s lack of diligence in monitoring [his withholdings] made it difficult

if not impossible to return the parties to the status quo.” See id.; see also In re

Marriage of Hoffmeyer, No. 19-1427, 2020 WL 1887954, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr.

15, 2020) (Vaitheswaran, J., concurring specially) (“[A]s inequitable as the facts

1 Kenneth’s attorney agreed “he waited . . . about a year and a half before he filed

a motion.” 6

appear, I agree with the district court and the majority that Carl failed to seek timely

relief.”).

We affirm the district court’s denial of Kenneth’s motion to adjust withholding

and suspension of his child support payments.2

AFFIRMED.

2 Because we conclude Kenneth’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches, we

need not reach the issue of whether it is also barred by the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence.