Bull v. Smith
| Decision Date | 09 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23055,23055 |
| Citation | 299 S.C. 123,382 S.E.2d 905 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alice D. BULL, Appellant, v. Keith SMITH, Respondent. In re Keith SMITH, Petitioner, v. Alice D. BULL, Respondent. Alice D. BULL, Petitioner, v. Keith SMITH, Respondent. . Heard |
William R. Applegate, West Columbia, for respondent.
Did the Family Court abuse its discretion in requiring Ms. Bull to continue child support payments for Doreen, past Doreen's eighteenth birthday to assist Doreen in her college education?
Alice Bull, appellant, and Keith Smith, respondent, were divorced October 5, 1983. The divorce decree awarded Ms. Bull custody of both of the parties daughters, Wendy and Doreen. In October 1987, the older of the two girls, Doreen, moved to her father's home. By Order dated February 29, 1988, the Family Court awarded custody of Doreen to Mr. Smith and adjusted child support finding that Ms. Bull should provide $204.00 per month support for Doreen and Mr. Smith should provide $333.00 per month support for Wendy. The lower court required Mr. Smith pay $130.00 per month, which it miscalculated as the net difference of the two amounts.
The present action arose out of a dispute between the parties as to Ms. Bull's obligations under the prior Orders following Doreen's eighteenth birthday, March 15, 1988, and graduation from high school in late May of 1988.
Mr. Smith requested, inter alia, that the Family Court require Ms. Bull to continue to be responsible for support for Doreen, as Doreen was attending college and needed assistance with her college expenses. The Family Court agreed, finding Doreen continued to need support from her mother and reasoning that a sufficient change of circumstances had not occurred justifying a modification of the prior support Order. This appeal followed.
Child support awards are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 283 S.C. 87, 320 S.E.2d 706 (1984).
An ex-spouse's duty to support a child of the marriage ends by operation of law when the child turns eighteen. Spires v. Higgins, 271 S.C. 530, 248 S.E.2d 488 (1978). Under certain "exceptional circumstances," the family court may order a divorced parent to pay for the educational expenses of an emancipated child. Risinger v. Risinger, 273 S.C. 36, 253 S.E.2d 652 (1979). Thus, the lower court erred in applying a "change of circumstances" test in determining if Ms. Bull should provide support for Doreen's educational expenses past age eighteen.
A family court must consider the following factors in deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist which require a parent to contribute to the educational expenses of a child over age eighteen: (1) the characteristics of the child indicate that he or she will benefit from college; (2) the child demonstrates the ability to do well, or at least make satisfactory grades; (3) the child cannot otherwise go to school; (4) the parent has the financial ability to help pay for such an education; (5) the availability of grants and loans; and (6) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation. Nicholson v. Lewis, 295 S.C. 434, 369 S.E.2d 649 (Ct.App.1988).
The Family Court's Order found:
That the oldest child has been admitted to Midland Technical College in a two year Secretarial course. Her tuition is $250.00 per quarter. In addition, other funds will be needed for books, transportation, and other expenses related to college attendance. Such child is going to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badeaux v. Davis
...506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct.App.1998) (citing Holcombe v. Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524, 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991)). See also, Bull v. Smith, 299 S.C. 123, 382 S.E.2d 905 (1989) (Appellate Court may make an independent review of the record to make findings of fact where the Family Court's order fa......
-
Thornton v. Thornton, 24698
...where there are ... exceptional circumstances that warrant it, during any period and beyond the child's minority...."); Bull v. Smith, 299 S.C. 123, 382 S.E.2d 905 (1989). If, however, certain factors are met, the family court may order a divorced parent to pay the college expenses of an em......
-
Hines v. Hines
... ... 506 S.E.2d at 535 (quoting Holcombe v. Hardee , 304 ... S.C. 522, 524, 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991)); see also ... Bull v. Smith, 299 S.C. 123, 126, 382 ... S.E.2d 905, 906-07 (1989) (holding an appellate court may ... independently review the record to ... ...
-
Hines v. Hines
...646-47, 506 S.E.2d at 535 (quoting Holcombe v. Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524, 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991)); see also Bull v. Smith, 299 S.C. 123, 126, 382 S.E.2d 905, 906-07 (1989) (holding an appellate court may independently review the record to make findings of fact when the family court's or......