Mom Bound to Pay Son’s College Tuition Despite Soured Relationship

Tennessee child custody case summary on college tuition after divorce.

Jennifer Lee Miller v. David Mark Miller, II

The mother and father in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2003, when their children were three and four years old.  They agreed to a marital dissolution agreement which included a permanent parenting plan.  The mother was named the primary residential parent.

The plan called for each parent to pay half of each child’s room, board, and tuition at the University of Tennessee for up to five consecutive years, as long as the child was a full-time student.  The son graduated from high school in 2016.  The following January, the father filed a petition for civil contempt.  He alleged that the mother willfully refused to pay her share of the son’s college expenses.

The mother argued that she was no longer required to pay these expenses, since she and the father had reached another agreement by text message.  These texts involved a discussion as to whether the son would take a drug test before starting college, which the parents had discussed after the son got kicked out of his mother’s home after a worsening relationship.

After reviewing the evidence, the trial court held that the mother had an obligation to cover the expenses, and that the court order was clear and unambiguous, and fully enforceable.  The court found that she was excused from paying for the first fall semester, since the son had not yet started college and had not taken the drug test.  But the court found that the mother’s failure to pay for the following semester was willful, and that she was in contempt.  Judgment was entered against her for almost $5,000, which the father had computed to be her share.  Disappointed with this outcome, the mother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The mother first argued that the father lacked standing to bring the contempt motion.  She also argued that the lower court erred in finding that she had violated the order.  Her argument was that the exchange of text messages had excused her from paying.

The appeals court first noted that historically, the duty of support lasted until a child turned 21, but this had later been reduced to 18.  But an agreement between the parties, as here, was enforceable.  It first found that the father had standing to bring the contempt motion.

The court then looked at the marital termination agreement and agreed with the lower court that the obligation was clear and unambiguous as to the mother’s duty to pay.  The mother argued that the subsequent text messages were ambiguous, but the appeals court pointed out that this had no bearing on the interpretation of the earlier agreement.

Also, the mother argued that the agreement was ambiguous because it failed to distinguish which campus of the University of Tennessee.  However, the appeals court dismissed this argument since her refusal to pay had nothing to do with the choice of campus.  She also failed to introduce any evidence as to the tuition rates at other campuses, and the court refused to take judicial notice of what those amounts would be.

The mother next argued that the text messages constituted a new contract.  But the appeals court pointed out that, at most, the messages constituted part of an agreement.  Therefore, it would not allow this extrinsic evidence to alter the terms of the original agreement.

The mother also argued that there was a joint decision that the son would not enroll fall semester, and therefore her obligation had come to an end.  But the appeals court agreed with the lower court that this was not the intent of the texts.

Finally, the mother argued that the son had “repudiated his relationship,” and that her obligation to pay for college ended when he did so.  But the trial court had held that the mother already agreed to pay, and that this reasoning amounted to “moving the goal post.”  The appeals court agreed with the lower court that this “repudiation of relationship” defense does not exist in Tennessee.  Even though Tennessee does not require a parent to pay college expenses, in this case, the contract to do so was enforceable.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and taxed the costs of the appeal against the mother.

No. M2017-01867-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.