Martin v. Martin
| Decision Date | 15 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 23S01-8607-CV-660,23S01-8607-CV-660 |
| Citation | 495 N.E.2d 523 |
| Parties | Gaye O. MARTIN, Rebecca L. Martin, Appellants (Petitioners Below), v. Harold L. MARTIN, Appellee (Respondent Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rebecca L. Martin (Rebecca) appeals the denial of the petition for college education expenses filed by her mother, Gaye O. Martin, against her father, Harold L. Martin. The trial court determined that because no order for educational expenses existed prior to Rebecca's twenty-first birthday, the father's duty to support terminated at that time, and no order for educational expenses could be entered subsequent thereto. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, 487 NE2d 1321, and the father now petitions for transfer. We agree to grant transfer and vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, but reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
In her appeal from the trial court determination, Rebecca presented the single issue of whether a court may consider a petition for educational expenses for a child subsequent to that child's twenty-first birthday when no order for educational expenses was in existence before that date.
The applicable statutory provisions are:
31-1-11.5-12. (a) In an action pursuant to [dissolution or child support], the court may order either parent or both parents to pay any amount reasonable for support of a child,
* * *
* * *
(b) Such child support order may also include, where appropriate:
(1) sums for the child's education in schools and at institutions of higher learning, taking into account the child's apptitude and ability and the ability of the parent or parents to meet these expenses; ...
* * *
* * *
(d) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child reaches his twenty-first birthday unless :
(1) the child is emancipated prior to his twenty-first birthday in which case the child support, except for educational needs, terminates at the time of emancipation; however, an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court; or
(2) the child is incapacitated in which case the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court. [Emphasis supplied.]
We believe this to be an issue not previously decided by this Court. In support of her contention, appellant's brief refers us to Howard v. Reeck (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 727; Statzell v. Gordon (1981), Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 732 and Thiele v. Thiele (1985), Ind.App., 479 N.E.2d 1324.
Howard did not involve college expenses for a child over twenty-one, and is not applicable to the issue now before this Court.
Statzell involved a post-dissolution proceeding in which the wife sought reimbursement from the husband for approximately eleven thousand dollars she had paid for their son's college education. The dissolution decree expressly provided that the husband would pay college expenses "so long as said minor child is engaged as a fulltime student in active pursuit of a degree." The case held that "college expenses advanced by the custodial parent because the obligated non-custodial parent did not meet such expenses when they were incurred, may be recovered by the custodial parent even after the child's emancipation." Thus, the Statzell opinion does not address the present issue.
In Thiele, the dissolution decree specifically ordered the father to pay college education expenses. The daughter began college, and the father complied. After one semester, she dropped out to attend a beautician school, but then re-entered college one and one-half years later. The decree required him to continue such payments "so long as" she was pursuing an undergraduate degree. When she dropped out of school, he contended that his obligation terminated under the "so long as" clause. The Thiele case specifically addressed only the single question of whether or not a court could require a parent to contribute to the expenses of a once discontinued but now resumed higher education. The daughter resumed school six months before her twenty-first birthday. Thiele is not pertinent to our inquiry.
The statute enumerates two exceptions to the provision that child support duties cease when the child reaches twenty-one. The first exception is emancipation before 21, and the second exception applies where the child is incapacitated. It is within the first exception that we find the crucial language:
[h]owever, an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court.
While this provision is located within the exception applicable to emancipation prior to age 21, we do not limit its application to situations where a child is emancipated before 21. We will not attribute to the legislature an intention to create a special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavazzi v. Cavazzi, 49A05-9104-CV-123
...exact conformance with the guidelines. Traditional examples of changed circumstances have included educational expenses, Martin v. Martin (1986), Ind., 495 N.E.2d 523; injury and bankruptcy, Kruse v. Kruse (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 934, reh'g denied, trans. denied (1985); and a change of......
-
Nash v. Mulle
...if the parent has the financial ability and the child has the aptitude. Ind.Code Sec. 31-1-11.5-12(b) (1991); see also Martin v. Martin, 495 N.E.2d 523 (Ind.1986). Other legislatures have taken the lead from court decisions allowing college support and now statutorily provide for such suppo......
-
In re Howell
...v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d 1068, 1079 (Ind.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted), and not treated as “mere surplusage,” Martin v. Martin, 495 N.E.2d 523, 524–25 (Ind.1986). And here, a “spouse” or “child” is always a “relative” of the debtor—so if they, too, were meant to be “dependent upon” the......
-
Schueneman v. Schueneman
...1066. However, a parent may still be required to pay the educational needs as outlined in subsection 31-1-11.5-12(b)(1); Martin v. Martin (1986), Ind., 495 N.E.2d 523. Indiana Code 31-1-11.5-12(b)(1) provides as "(b) The child support order may also include, where appropriate: (1) sums for ......