Educational Expenses

Educational Expenses

___Age of Majority
   Where marital settlement agreement contained definition for when emancipation occurred, since the agreement did not specifically limit the provision to the husband only, wife was ordered to pay child support until youngest child in husband’s custody reached emancipation under terms of the agreement.  In re Sweders
   The respondent was not obligated for additional post majority expenses unless by virtue of the marital settlement agreement.  In re Leming
   The court could properly require the continuation of support payments for educational purposes after the child attained the age of majority.  Harding v. Harding

___Burden of Proof
   Where no information other than that elicited by husband’s counsel was presented regarding the daughter’s financial resources and her financial dependency on her mother, and the little information received on cross-examination did not support the mother’s request that the father contributed to the daughter’s education and maintenance, wife failed to meet her burden of supporting request for educational support.  In re McGory

___College
   A provision in a dissolution judgment for the payment of a child’s college expenses is a term in the nature of child support, and the circuit court therefore retains jurisdiction to modify such a provision at any time pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/502 and this section, regardless of whether the provision was ordered by the court under 750 ILCS 5/513 or incorporated into the judgment as a result of a settlement agreement.  In re Loffredi
   Where an institution was not a “college” as that term was contemplated under the marital settlement agreement, the trial court’s award of four months” additional post majority child support pursuant to the marital settlement agreement was against the language of the marital settlement agreement.  In re Leming
   Although defendant no longer practiced medicine, evidence concerning his financial condition reflected that he retained a substantial income from his investments and did not demonstrate that would have prohibited the trial court from ordering that defendant provide additional educational support for his child; thus, the manifest weight of the evidence did not reflect that the college expenditures were excessive or otherwise unreasonable.  Hardling v. Harding
   Defendant’s contention that an obligation for the payment of educational expenses should only be imposes on him after it was studies was without merit.  Harding v. Harding

___Consent Decree
   The court has power to modify a decree or order as to child support and educational payments and there are no exceptions in regard to prior agreements or “consent decrees;” the trial court is not deprived of the power to modify a consent decree.  Duval v. Duval

___Death of Obligor
   Where a stipulation and agreed order did not contain any language limiting the obligation to pay a non-minor child’s college education expense to the decedent’s lifetime, the order did not terminate upon the decedent’s death, and his estate was responsible for these expenses.  DeFrancesca v. Estate of Champagne

___Death of Parent
   Where the settlement agreement established the father’s obligation to pay for the children’s college expenses even where they attained their majority, subject only to his financial ability to pay and the children’s aptitude for higher education, the fact that he died before his ability to pay was adjudicated did not mitigate that responsibility.  In re Oldham
   Under subsection (d) of this section and section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/513), the circuit court may not enter an order against the estate of a circuit court may not enter an order against the estate of a non-custodial deceased parent for the payment of college expenses of a non-minor child when no such previous obligation was imposed upon the parent to be charged prior to his death.  Treacy v. Treacy

__Emancipation
   Trial court abused its discretion in modifying respondent’s obligation to provide that respondent did not have any obligation to pay for the college expenses of his son, which obligation was conditioned on his son being college material and on respondent’s financial ability to provide for the expenses, because in order to make an intelligent and useful decision, there would have to be facts to indicate whether respondent’s son was college material, what his expenses would be, and respondent’s financial ability at that time to provide for the expenses; at the time respondent brought his petition, none of these things could be ascertained.  In re Walters

___Modification in Error
   Trial court abused its discretion in modifying respondent’s obligation to provide that respondent did not have any obligation to pay for the college expenses of his son, which obligation was conditioned on his son being college material and on respondent’s financial ability to provide for the expenses, because in order to make an intelligent and useful decision, there would have to be facts to indicate whether respondent’s son was college material, what his expenses would be, and respondent’s financial ability at that time to provide for the expenses; at the time respondent brought his petition, none of these things could be ascertained.  In re Walters

___Termination
   Where a divorce decree did not provide support for the educational expenses of the parties’ non-minor children and stated that the question of educational expenses was to be reserved for future consideration, and the support awarded in the decree was support for the three minor children, this type of support terminated when the children were emancipated and the divorce decree did not obligate the father to continue paying child support after the youngest child attained majority.  In re Pauley

___Reasonable Diligence
   Even in the absence of an enforceable agreement, there was no reason why the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be applied as to all or part of past installments in an appropriate case.  Anderson v. Anderson

___Parol Evidence
   Where the evidence established a mutual mistake of fact contained within a property settlement agreement, the court properly considered patrol evidence of the settlement negotiations.  In re Johnson

Back to Home Page