Haynes v. Haynes, 78-012
| Decision Date | 02 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-012,78-012 |
| Citation | 41 Colo.App. 469,586 P.2d 1010 |
| Parties | Nancy M. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William S. HAYNES, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Kenneth E. Harris, Jr., Westminster, for plaintiff-appellant.
William S. Haynes, pro se.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment terminating child support and awarding a lump sum of $1,500 for college expenses. We reverse.
The parties were divorced January 28, 1969, at which time the court continued the matter to a date certain for permanent orders. On April 22, 1969, the parties filed a property settlement agreement, and the court entered its order that the agreement "is approved, accepted, referred to, and adopted by the court as the order of this Court . . . ." Under the agreement plaintiff obtained custody of the three minor children and defendant agreed to pay $175 per month per child. The agreement provided defendant would continue to make the monthly support payments until each child reached the age of 21 or completed a college education or professional education, whichever occurred last. The defendant also agreed to provide for support and expenses of post-high school education. The two older children elected not to go to college, and both are now emancipated. At the time of the last hearing (October 4, 1977, continued to December 1, 1977), the youngest child, Mark, was 18 years of age, a freshman at the University of Colorado, and afflicted with epilepsy.
There have been numerous court hearings during the stormy career of this case, with various counsel appearing for the parties, and the parties often appearing pro se to enforce or modify the decree. After the final hearing, at which no evidence was taken, the court determined that defendant should pay $1,500 toward Mark's college expenses for the first year; that Mark should be able to finance his own schooling thereafter; that the arrearage of $686.17 paid by defendant on October 13, 1977, was available for the school expenses; and that defendant would have no further obligation for support.
Plaintiff contends that the court erred in failing to recognize the continuing validity of the child support and education provisions in the divorce decree insofar as the decree defined the specific obligation of defendant to support his son until he completes a college or professional education. We agree.
Although a parent does not have an absolute duty to pay for the college expenses of his minor child as part of his obligation of support, the parent may be ordered to pay those expenses if the court finds that the welfare of the child will be served by further education at the college level. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo.App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1972). Here, defendant himself recognized that his children might benefit from a college education, and he agreed in the property settlement agreement to assume responsibility for the costs of that education. The property settlement agreement became part of the court's divorce decree by virtue of C.R.S.1963, 46-1-5(6), then applicable, providing that a written agreement of the parties became a part of the court's order or decree if it was "filed in the action and referred to and approved and adopted in any order or decree."
Property settlement agreements incorporated into the decree are not ordinarily subject to future modification. Lay v. Lay, 162 Colo. 43, 425 P.2d 704 (1974). However, a provision for child support and custody, which is part of an incorporated agreement, can be modified. Berglund v. Berglund, 28 Colo.App. 382, 474 P.2d 800 (1970). But modification should not be made unless it appears that changed circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable. Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379 (1960). See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
June Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Andrus
...P. 139 (1893) (support in general); Union Pac. R. Co. v. Jones, 21 Colo. 340, 40 P. 891 (1895) (medical expenses); Haynes v. Haynes, 41 Colo.App. 469, 586 P.2d 1010 (1978) (divorced parent may be liable for college education expenses); VanOrman v. VanOrman, 30 Colo.App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (19......
-
Marriage of Meisner, In re
...decree are governed by the terms of the settlement agreement. See In re Marriage of Robinson, 629 P.2d 1069 (1981); Haynes v. Haynes, 41 Colo.App. 469, 586 P.2d 1010 (1978). Accordingly, we agree that the trial court could not retroactively apply the child support guidelines, § 14-10-115, C......
- Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical Center
-
Post-secondary Education Expenses: a Multi-tiered Approach
...of Eaton, 894 P.2d 56 (Colo.App. 1995). 9. 797 P.2d 819 (Colo.App. 1990). 10. CRS § 14-10-122(1)(a). 11. CRS § 14-10-115(1.5)(d). 12. 586 P.2d 1010 (Colo.App. 13. The title of this statute is "Separation Agreements." 14. CRS § 14-10-112(2) and (6). 15. In re the Marriage of Aldinger, 813 P.......