In re Marriage of Huber

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0115
Filed August 6, 2025

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JENNIFER HUBER AND ZACHARY HUBER

Upon the Petition of
JENNIFER HUBER n/k/a JENNA FLEENER,
Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning
ZACHARY HUBER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Myron Gookin,

Judge.

Zachary Huber appeals from district court determination that he owes

outstanding child support. AFFIRMED.

Zachary Huber, Ames, self-represented appellant.

Lynnette M. Lindgren of Broerman, Lindgren & Denny, Ottumwa, for

appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and

Sandy, JJ.
2

AHLERS, Judge.

Zachary Huber and Jenna Fleener1 divorced by way of stipulated decree in

November 2012. At the time, the parties had one child, and Jenna was pregnant

with their second. The decree placed the children in Jenna’s physical care and

ordered Zachary to pay child support in the amount of $783.26 per month for one

child and $1118.58 per month for two children.

Zachary receives Social Security disability benefits, making the children

eligible for auxiliary benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). At the time of dissolution

those auxiliary benefits totaled $597.00 per month.2 The monthly auxiliary benefits

were to be credited to Zachary’s monthly child support obligation and paid directly

to Jenna, and Zachary would be responsible for payment of the remaining amount

of his monthly child support obligation, which was to be paid via withholding. See

Iowa Code § 598.22C(3) (2022).

In August 2016, Zachary married again and added his new wife as a

dependent eligible for auxiliary benefits. They eventually had two children of their

own, and Zachary added them as dependents eligible for auxiliary benefits as well.

However, the amount of auxiliary benefits available to Zachary’s dependents did

not increase each time he added a dependent. Instead, the benefits were

reallocated equally between each dependent. See 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.304, .403, .404. As a result, by the time Zachary had added three

additional dependents, Jenna only received 40% of the monthly auxiliary benefits

1 Jenna was previously known as Jennifer Huber.
2 The amount of the auxiliary benefits slightly increased over time due to cost-of-

living adjustments.
3

for her two children.3 Meanwhile, Zachary’s monthly withholding remained the

same. This meant that, because of the reduced auxiliary payments resulting from

Zachary’s adding of dependents, Jenna was not receiving the full amount of the

ordered child support each month.

In 2022, Jenna initiated these contempt proceedings by filing an application

for rule to show cause alleging that Zachary was approximately $17,000 behind in

his child support payments. In May 2023, Zachary voluntarily terminated his

parental rights, allowing Jenna’s husband to adopt the children and ending

Zachary’s child support obligations going forward.

At the hearing on the application for rule to show cause, Jenna provided a

detailed accounting of all child support payments and supporting documentation.

She claimed Zachary owed her $22,412.88 in unpaid child support. Zachary

claimed there was no deficiency and he had actually slightly overpaid child support.

He also claimed that should he be deficient, any continuing auxiliary benefits paid

to Jenna for the children at issue should be credited toward that deficiency and

satisfy it.

The district court found Jenna and her supporting documentation to be

credible, rejected Zachary’s claims, and concluded that Zachary owed Jenna

$22,077.56 in child support through May 2023,4 though it did not hold Zachary in

3 As Zachary identified five dependents, the auxiliary benefits were divided into five

shares. Jenna’s two children were allocated two of those shares, so Jenna
received 40% of the auxiliary benefits.
4 The district court found one error in Jenna’s accounting. She overlooked the fact

that Zachary only owed child support for one child for the first month of support
because their second child had yet to be born. This accounts for the minor
discrepancy between the amount the district court found due and Jenna’s
accounting.
4

contempt because it concluded his actions were not willful. The court also ordered

Zachary to pay $1500 of Jenna’s attorney fees. Zachary appeals.

“The standard of review accorded equitable actions concerning support

orders is de novo.” In re Marriage of Griffin, 525 N.W.2d 852, 853 (Iowa 1994);

see also In re Marriage of Bohr, No. 21-0714, 2022 WL 3906803, at *1 (Iowa Ct.

App. Aug. 31, 2022) (applying de novo review to an action to determine a child

support arrearage). “In this review, we are not bound by the findings of the trial

court, but we give those findings some weight.” Griffin, 525 N.W.2d at 853.

On appeal, Zachary asks us to recognize the children at issue never went

without auxiliary benefits and argues those past payments should count toward his

child support obligation. On this point we agree with Zachary, as did the district

court. Jenna, on behalf of the children, has received some portion of the auxiliary

benefits for several years, and those payments were credited toward Zachary’s

child support obligation as contemplated in the parties’ stipulated dissolution

decree and reflected in Jenna’s accounting of payments. See Iowa Code

§ 598.22C(3)(a)(2), (3) (providing a credit against an obligor’s child support

obligation for auxiliary benefits paid to the obligee). The problem is that the amount

of those auxiliary benefits decreased as Zachary added dependents and Zachary

took no steps to make up the difference. As a result, Zachary finds himself

$22,077.56 in arrears on his child support obligation.

Zachary also claims that, despite the termination of his parental rights in

May 2023, Jenna will continue to receive auxiliary benefits on behalf of the children

after that date and such benefits should be applied to extinguish any arrearage in

his child support obligation. The district court properly rejected this argument. The
5

issue at trial and on appeal is what Zachary’s child support arrearage was as of

May 2023 when his parental rights were terminated. We affirm the district court’s

determination that such arrearage is $22,077.56. The questions of whether any

auxiliary benefits have been paid or will be paid to Jenna for the children after

May 2023 and what effect any such payments would have on Zachary’s child

support arrearage is not an issue in this case. As we have no duty or authority to

render advisory opinions, those questions will need to be answered in some future

proceeding if a disagreement develops as to Zachary’s satisfaction of his

outstanding child support obligation. See In re Marriage of Mrla, No. 19-1222,

2020 WL 5229197, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2020) (refusing to issue an

advisory opinion).

Zachary also challenges the district court’s award of $1500 in trial attorney

fees to Jenna. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715

N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006).

Generally, a court may only award attorney fees when authorized to do so

by statute. Iowa Individual Health Benefit Reins. Ass’n v. State Univ. of Iowa, 999

N.W.2d 656, 668 (Iowa 2023). Iowa Code section 598.24 is the statute at issue

here, and it permits the court to award attorney fees against a party it determined

to be “in default or contempt of the decree” in “an action for a modification, order

to show cause, or contempt of a dissolution, annulment, or separate maintenance

decree . . . brought on the grounds that a party to the decree is in default or

contempt of the decree.” Here, the district court declined to hold Zachary in

contempt but found that he failed to pay a significant portion of his child support

obligation. While it did not use the word “default,” we conclude the substance of
6

the court’s ruling effectively determined Zachary was in default for failing to pay all

child support owed. As such, the award of attorney fees was permitted by statute—

specifically section 598.24. See In re Marriage of Anderson, 451 N.W.2d 187, 189–

90 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (holding that section 598.24 permits a party to be ordered

to pay attorney fees when the party is determined to owe a financial obligation

even though the party was not held in contempt). As the award of attorney fees

was permitted by statute and we find no abuse in the court’s decision to order

Zachary to pay $1500 of Jenna’s attorney fees, we affirm on this issue as well.

AFFIRMED.