Douglas v. Hammett
Decision Date | 01 December 1998 |
Docket Number | Record No. 0313-98-4. |
Citation | 28 Va. App. 517,507 S.E.2d 98 |
Parties | Donald A. DOUGLAS v. Bonnie Jean HAMMETT, f/k/a Bonnie Jean Douglas. |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Dan Burke (Tyler, Bartl, Burke & Albert, on brief), Alexandria, for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Present: FITZPATRICK, C.J., WILLIS and ANNUNZIATA, JJ.
Donald A. Douglas (husband) appeals the trial court's order requiring him to reimburse Bonnie Jean Hammett (wife) for college expenses she paid for their son. He contends the trial court erred in awarding reimbursement for living expenses while the child was attending school and the purchase price of a computer. Finding no error, we affirm.
"On appeal, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to wife, the prevailing party below, granting to her evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Donnell v. Donnell, 20 Va.App. 37, 39, 455 S.E.2d 256, 257 (1995). Husband and wife were married in 1972 and one child, Donald Douglas, Jr. (Donald), was born of the marriage. The parties entered into a separation agreement dated January 27, 1979. Paragraph five of the agreement provided that the husband would "pay the expenses of a college education for the child."1 The agreement was incorporated into the final decree of divorce entered May 7, 1980.
At the time of the hearing in this matter, Donald had recently graduated from East Carolina University (University). He attended the University from 1992 through 1997 on a full athletic scholarship that covered tuition, books, housing and the university meal plan. According to N.C.A.A. rules, Donald was not allowed to work during the academic year. As a result of this restriction, his mother sent him a monthly allowance for living expenses not covered by his scholarship.2 These living expenses included transportation, clothes, laundry, meals outside the college meal plan, long distance phone bills, basketball league fees not paid by the University, and other incidentals.3 Donald testified that his father had given him money only "once or twice" during the five years of college.
The educational program at East Carolina is generally four years. However, Donald spent five years attaining his undergraduate degree because he "red-shirted"4 one year due to medical reasons. Additionally, Donald testified he could have graduated in four years "if I would have taken a heavier load, which would have made it that much more difficult to keep decent grades due to our travel schedule." To make up academic credits, he attended summer school during his first year of college because the summer school tuition was covered by his athletic scholarship. He earned both a bachelor's of science degree in business administration and a master's degree in business administration from the University.
In June 1997, wife filed a petition in the circuit court to enforce paragraph five of the parties' property settlement agreement. She argued that the agreement required husband to pay all necessary college expenses for Donald. Wife sought reimbursement for actual expenditures, including the purchase price of a computer used by Donald during college. Wife's evidence established that she spent approximately $36,600 in uncovered college expenses.
Following an ore tenus hearing, the trial court awarded college-related living expenses in the amount of $150 per month for nine months for four years. The court stated:
The trial court also found the computer purchased for Donald was a "cause-related" expense of college and covered by paragraph five of the parties' agreement. Accordingly, husband was ordered to reimburse wife a total of $10,123, which included $5,400 in college living expenses ($150 per month for nine months for four years) and $4,723, the cost of a computer.
On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in awarding wife reimbursement for monies she spent on Donald's college expenses.5 Husband first argues the trial court erroneously ordered him to pay $150 per month for college living expenses when Donald was receiving a full athletic scholarship. We disagree.
450 S.E.2d at 764; see also Waynesboro Village v. BMC Properties, 255 Va. 75, 79-80, 496 S.E.2d 64, 67 (1998) () . Although parties may advance different interpretations of the provisions in an agreement, this "does not necessarily imply the existence of ambiguity where there otherwise is none." Smith v. Smith, 3 Va.App. 510, 513-14, 351 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986). "`An ambiguity exists when language admits of being understood in more than one way or refers to two or more things at the same time.'" Id. at 513, 351 S.E.2d at 595 (quoting Renner Plumbing v. Renner, 225 Va. 508, 515, 303 S.E.2d 894, 898 (1983)).
In the instant case, we do not view the term "expenses for college education" as ambiguous. Husband argues the term should be strictly limited to tuition, books, room and board, and any other fees necessary to participate in the educational program. Under the plain meaning rule, we believe the term "college expenses" includes tuition, room, board, books, fees, clothing, allowances and incidentals. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Pearson, 236 Ill.App.3d 337, 177 Ill.Dec. 650, 603 N.E.2d 720, 730 (Ill.App.Ct. 1992)
( ); In re Marriage of Falat, 201 Ill.App.3d 320, 147 Ill.Dec. 33, 559 N.E.2d 33, 37 (Ill.App.Ct.1990) ( ); In re Marriage of Pauley, 104 Ill.App.3d 100, 59 Ill.Dec. 875, 432 N.E.2d 661, 665 (Ill.App.Ct. 1982) ( ; Harding v. Harding, 59 Ill.App.3d 25, 16 Ill.Dec. 426, 374 N.E.2d 1304, 1306 (Ill.App. Ct.1978) ( ); Dupuis v. Click, 135 N.H. 333, 604 A.2d 576, 577 (N.H.1992) ( ); Brake v. Brake, 271 Pa.Super. 314, 413 A.2d 422, 423-24 (Pa.Super. Ct.1979) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pellegrin v. Pellegrin
...agreement is a contract between the parties and that their rights and obligations are defined under it. See Douglas v. Hammett, 28 Va.App. 517, 523, 507 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1998) (separation agreements and property settlement agreements are contracts); Jones v. Jones, 19 Va.App. 265, 268-69, 45......
-
Olsen v. Mackay, Record No. 1553-09-4 (Va. App. 4/27/2010)
...is owed great weight and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Douglas v. Hammett, 28 Va. App. 517, 525, 507 S.E.2d 98, 102 (1998). We owe the trial court this deference "[b]ecause the trial court's classification of property is a finding of fact." R......
-
In re Litton
...employed therein can be "understood in more than one way or refers to two or more things at the same time." Douglas v. Hammett, 28 Va.App. 517, 507 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1998). Because the prohibition on "modification" contained in the 2000 Order is susceptible to more than one meaning, it is amb......
-
Campbell v. Campbell
...is owed great weight and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Douglas v. Hammett, 28 Va. App. 517, 525, 507 S.E.2d 98, 102 (1998). We owe the trial court this deference "[b]ecause the trial court's classification of property is a finding of fact." R......