Ellis v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 03 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24148,24148 |
| Citation | 449 S.E.2d 487,316 S.C. 245 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 95 Ed. Law Rep. 1099 Lacey C. ELLIS, formerly Lacey C. Taylor, Petitioner, v. James G. TAYLOR, Respondent. . Heard |
Kenneth C. Porter, of Porter & Rosenfeld, Greenville, for petitioner.
Jefferson V. Smith, Jr., of Carter, Smith, Meriam, Tapp, Rogers & Traxler, Greer, for respondent.
This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision reported at --- S.C. ----, 427 S.E.2d 678 (Ct.App.1992). Petitioner (Mother) contends the Court of Appeals erred in construing the parties' separation agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Mother and respondent (Father) were married in 1970 and had two sons, James and Curtis Lee. The parties divorced in 1978. Their separation agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree and provided:
[Father] agrees to pay all reasonable expenses for college education for the children of the parties, including tuition, room and board, books, materials, and supplies to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship, grant or other assistance available to the children. (Emphasis added).
The elder son, James, enrolled in Presbyterian College in 1990. Father informed Mother he could contribute only $6,250 towards college expenses. Mother brought this action seeking the total cost of James's college education. The family court ordered Father to pay $10,000 per year towards the $13,200 annual education expenses for tuition, room and board, and books. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Father's financial ability and James's ability to contribute towards his education through work and loans were to be considered in determining "reasonable expenses."
First, Mother contends the Court of Appeals erred in considering Father's financial ability to pay and James's ability to contribute to college expenses in construing the phrase "all reasonable expenses." We agree.
A parent may contractually obligate himself to pay educational expenses beyond the age of majority. McDuffie v. McDuffie, --- S.C. ----, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993). Construction of such an agreement is a matter of contract law. Id. When the language of a contract is plain and capable of legal construction, that language alone determines the instrument's force and effect. Jordan v. Security Group, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 428 S.E.2d 705 (1993). The court's duty is to enforce the contract made by the parties regardless of its wisdom or folly, apparent unreasonableness, or the parties' failure to guard their rights carefully. Id.
The plain language of the parties' agreement defines the reasonable expenses Father is to pay. These expenses include tuition, room and board, books, materials, and supplies. Nothing in the agreement requires consideration of Father's financial ability nor does it require the children to minimize college expenses. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' holding that Father's financial ability and James's ability to contribute reduced Father's obligation to pay.
Mother further contends the Court of Appeals erred in holding that loans available from Presbyterian College constituted "other assistance" that reduced Father's obligation to pay. We agree.
The agreement states that Father will pay all reasonable expenses "to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship, grant or other assistance available to the children." When words of particular and specific meaning are followed by general words, the general words are construed to embrace only persons or things of the same general kind or class as those enumerated. See Swanigan v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crenshaw v. Erskine Coll.
...(2016). "The court's duty is to enforce the contract made by the parties regardless of its wisdom or folly ...." Ellis v. Taylor , 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1994). No jury—nor any judge—is permitted by law to rewrite a contract to impose liability based on some vague personal ......
-
Ecclesiastes Prod. Ministries v. Outparcel
...its terms, regardless of the contract's wisdom or folly, or the parties' failure to guard their rights carefully. Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1994); Jordan v. Security Group, Inc., 311 S.C. 227, 230, 428 S.E.2d 705, 707 Whether a contract's language is ambiguous......
-
Davis v. Davis, 4188.
...v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 491 S.E.2d 583 (Ct. App.1997)); Ebert v. Ebert, 320 S.C. 331, 465 S.E.2d 121 (Ct.App.1995); Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 449 S.E.2d 487 (1994); Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 (1973). On the other hand, when an agreement is suscept......
-
Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., 4389.
...its terms, regardless of the contract's wisdom or folly, or the parties' failure to guard their rights carefully. Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1994); Jordan v. Security Group, Inc., 311 S.C. 227, 230, 428 S.E.2d 705, 707 The parties signed the agreement and separ......
-
Clear Agreements as the Best Prevention
...to the family court). [39] Id. [40] McDuffie v. McDuffie, 313 S.C. 397, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993). [41] Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 2425, 449 S.E.2d 487 (1994). [42] Lacke, 362 S.C. at 314, 608 S.E.2d at 153. [43] McDuffie, 313 S.C. at 399, 438 S.E.2d at 211. [44] Lacke, 362 S.C. at 312, 608 S.E.......
-
Education Issues in Family Court Agreements
...as to the wisdom or folly of such an agreement, including the parties' respective financial conditions. Id. citing Ellis u. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 449 S.E.2d 487 (1994) (finding agreement did not require consideration of ability to pay). [26] Even the most dedicated of parents may be overwhe......