Husband Found In Contempt For Failing To Pay Half Of Children’s College Tuition

Marriage settlement agreements can contain all kinds of provisions. In one case, Davis v. Davis, the marital settlement agreement appeared to contain a provision that required the husband to pay half of his children’s college tuition. When he failed, he was found in contempt of court. The husband appealed the ruling finding him in contempt and argued that the court erred when interpreting the marital settlement agreement. In this case, the appeals court sided with the husband. Below, the Tampa divorce lawyers at Faulkner Law Group, PLLC will discuss this case and the relevant areas of the law that the case references.

Background of the case 

The former husband and wife were divorced in 2008. They had two minor children at the time of their divorce. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated a marital settlement agreement that the parties had jointly drafted together. One section of the settlement agreement was entitled “Secondary School Expenses”. The provision read as follows:

The parties agree that the Husband will be responsible, above and beyond the standard monthly child support, for 50% of any secondary educational tuition and/or related expenses for all of the children.

Should one of the children not attend a secondary educational institution prior to the age of twenty-one (21), the Husband is relieved of this financial responsibility for that child.

Nothing happened with the case until March 2023 when the former wife filed a “Verified Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment” against the former husband, alleging that he had failed to comply with the “Secondary School Expenses” provision for his oldest child.

In the contempt motion, the former wife alleged that the oldest child had graduated from high school in 2020 at the age of 18 and had since been continuously enrolled in college full-time. The oldest child had incurred tuition costs and related expenses totaling $21,212.77. The former wife alleged that she had notified the former husband of his obligation to provide reimbursement for half that figure. The former husband responded with a request to dismiss the contempt motion. His primary argument was that the stipulation did not require the husband to pay half of the child’s college expenses, but only his secondary school expenses (ie: high school). College is postsecondary education. The district court ruled in favor of the mother, but the appeals court found that the father’s argument was correct as a matter of law, and he was not required to pay for the child’s college education.

It goes without saying that neither individual had a lawyer represent them during the drafting of this agreement. Had they, it would have been certain that both husband and wife had the same idea about what the provision meant when the agreement was drafted. The wife believed erroneously that “secondary education” referred to college, while the husband correctly interpreted the phrase to mean high school. Had an attorney been representing the mother, the term “college” would have been used exclusively in lieu of “secondary education.”

Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today 

Looking to divorce in Tampa, FL? Call the Tampa family attorneys at Faulkner Law Group, PLLC.

Source:

casetext.com/case/davis-v-davis-102361?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202024&p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=flsct,flapp&sort=relevance&type=case