McDuffie v. McDuffie
Decision Date | 07 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 23955,23955 |
Citation | 313 S.C. 397,438 S.E.2d 239 |
Parties | , 88 Ed. Law Rep. 422 Donna R. McDUFFIE, Marlaina Jean McDuffie and Donna R. McDuffie, as Guardian ad Litem for Melissa Leigh McDuffie, Petitioners, v. Roy McDUFFIE and Ernest F. McDuffie, Jr., Personal Representative for E.F. McDuffie, Sr., Respondents. . Heard |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Eric P. Nelson, Cox, Nelson & Associates, Myrtle Beach, for petitioners.
James B. Richardson, Jr., Svalina, Richardson & Smith, Columbia, for respondents.
P.F. Luke Hughes, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Myrtle Beach, guardian ad litem for E.F. McDuffie, Sr.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion reported at --- S.C. ----, 418 S.E.2d 331 (Ct.App.1992).
We reverse in part; we affirm in result.
The parties, Donna R. McDuffie (Mother) and E.F. McDuffie, Sr. (Father), 1 were married in 1965 and had two children, Nina, born in 1966, and Missy, born in 1970. They were divorced in 1978. Their 1977 separation agreement, incorporated into the 1978 divorce decree, provided:
The Husband agrees to be solely responsible for the expense of the above named children's college education, if any. The husband agrees to pay all expenses associated with such college education of any of said children who might wish to attend college even though such child has attained his or her majority. (Emphasis supplied).
The elder daughter, Nina, began Francis Marion College in 1985; Missy entered Coastal Carolina College in 1989. In 1990, Mother and Daughters instituted this action seeking (a) reimbursement for all of Nina's past college and living expenses 2 and (b) payment for Missy's first semester, as well as her future college expenses.
Based upon the divorce decree and this Court's opinion in Risinger v. Risinger, 3 Family Court ordered Father to pay reimbursement for Missy's first semester of college and, additionally, required him to pay all Missy's future expenses, to include: tuition Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that Father was not obligated to pay Missy's automobile and incidental costs, or $400 per month allowance. It based the finding upon Missy's failure to fulfill "her duty to help minimize college expenses." 418 S.E.2d at 334. Father was, however, required to pay Missy's expenses in accordance with the divorce decree, i.e., tuition, fees, room, books and supplies.
fees, room, board, transportation expenses, incidental costs, and $400 per month spending money.
We granted certiorari to review whether Court of Appeals erred in holding (a) that Missy was under a "duty to minimize college expenses," and (b) that Father was not required to pay Missy $400 per month, plus transportation and incidental expenses.
Family Court and Court of Appeals relied upon Risinger in determining Father's obligation. Risinger held that, under certain exceptional circumstances, parents may be required to provide support for educational expenses of emancipated children. 273 S.C. at 39, 253 S.E.2d at 653-654. The availability of grants and loans, and the ability of the child to earn income, have been recognized as factors to consider in making such an award. Bull v. Smith, 299 S.C. 123, 382 S.E.2d 905 (1989); Wagner v. Wagner, 285 S.C. 430, 329 S.E.2d 788 (Ct.App.1985).
However, a parent may contractually obligate himself to pay educational expenses of a child beyond the age of majority. Stanaland v. Jamison, 275 S.C. 50, 268 S.E.2d 578 (1980). Such agreements are not modifiable by the Court without the consent of the parties. In re White, 299 S.C. 406, 385 S.E.2d 211 (Ct.App.1989). Construction of the agreement is a matter of contract law. Ellis v. Taylor, --- S.C. ----, 427 S.E.2d 678 (Ct.App.1992).
Here, nothing in the parties' agreement required daughters to minimize their college expenses. Accordingly, Father was bound by the agreement and was obligated to pay all college expenses. Missy was under no duty to minimize. 4 Cf. In re White, supra.
In determining Father's liability, Family Court found the phrase "all college expenses" plain and unambiguous and held that, in addition to tuition, books, fees, room, board and supplies, Father was liable to Missy for transportation and incidental costs, plus $400 per month spending. This was error.
We find the words "all college expenses," without more, patently ambiguous. Court of Appeals, in resolving the ambiguity, properly sought to determine the intent of the parties. Mattox v. Cassady, 289 S.C. 57, 344 S.E.2d 620 (Ct.App.1986) ( ).
Here, in her testimony, Mother defined college expenses as "tuition, room, and board...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nicholson v. Nicholson, 4404.
...451 (Ct.App.2006) (citing Estate of Revis by Revis v. Revis, 326 S.C. 470, 477, 484 S.E.2d 112, 116 (Ct.App.1997)); McDuffie v. McDuffie, 313 S.C. 397, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993); Auten v. Snipes, 370 S.C. 664, 669, 636 S.E.2d 644, 646 (Ct.App.2006). The court's only function with an agreement t......
-
Lacke v. Lacke
...Skull Creek Club Ltd. P'ship v. Cook & Book, Inc., 313 S.C. 283, 437 S.E.2d 163 (Ct.App.1993). A. Ambiguity In McDuffie v. McDuffie, 313 S.C. 397, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993), the South Carolina Supreme Court found "the words `all college expenses,' without more, [are] patently ambiguous." McDuff......
-
Steeves v. Berit
...McDuffie v. McDuffie, 308 S.C. 401, 407-408, 418 S.E.2d 331 (Ct.App.1992), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 313 S.C. 397, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993). Cf. Plath v. Plath, 393 N.W.2d 401, 402-404 (Minn.App.1986) (appellant obligated to pay college expenses arising during eight semest......
-
Estate of Revis by Revis v. Revis
...of the agreement itself. In South Carolina, the construction of a separation agreement is a matter of contract law. McDuffie v. McDuffie, 313 S.C. 397, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993). Therefore, when construing separation agreements the intention of the parties is controlling. Id. at 400, 438 S.E.2d......
-
Clear Agreements as the Best Prevention
...using general principles of contract construction). [4] Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983). [5] McDuffie v. McDuffie, 313 S.C. 397, 438 S.E.2d 239 (1993). [6] Lacke v. Lacke, 362 S.C. 302, 308, 608 S.E.2d 147, 150 (Ct. App. 2005). [7] See e.g. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S.......
-
What to Expect When Expecting Marital Litigation Protecting Assets With Beneficiary Interest in a Divorce or Separate Support and Maintenance Action
...Hodge, 305 S.C. 521, 409 S.E.2d 436 (Ct.App. 1991). [12] Id. [13] Id. at 438. [14] S.C. Code Ann. §62-2-802(c). [15] McDuffe v. McDuffe, 313 S.C. 397, 399, 438 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1993). [16] Jacobs v. Serv. Merch. Co., 297 S.C. 123, 128, 375 S.E.2d 1, 4 (Ct.App. 1988). [17] Stribling, supra n......