Romansoff v. Romansoff

• Decision Date: 26 November 1990
• Citation: Romansoff v. Romansoff, 562 N.Y.S.2d 523, 167 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
• Parties: Florence ROMANSOFF, Respondent, v. Leonard ROMANSOFF, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 523

562 N.Y.S.2d 523

167 A.D.2d 527

Florence ROMANSOFF, Respondent, v. Leonard ROMANSOFF, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 26, 1990.

John E. Lawler, Yonkers, for appellant.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, KUNZEMAN and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, Leonard Romansoff appeals from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated May 25, 1989, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Winslow, H.E.), dated January 20, 1989, which granted the application of Florence Romansoff for an upward modification of child support to the extent of directing him to pay one half the college expenses of the parties' daughter.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the facts and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the appellant's objections are sustained, the order dated January 20, 1989, is vacated, and the application of Florence Romansoff for upward modification of child support is denied.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Family Court's order directing the appellant father to pay one-half of his daughter Stacy's college expenses until the completion of her college education was an improvident exercise of discretion. Prefatorily, we note that since no express agreement was made between the parties to continue the appellant's support for Stacy beyond the age of majority, at best the court could direct the appellant to contribute to her college expenses until she reached the age of 21 years (see, Family Ct. Act § 413[1]; Domestic Relations Law § 32; Bani-Esraili v. Lerman, 69 N.Y.2d 807, 808, 513 N.Y.S.2d 382, 505 N.E.2d 947; Morrissey v. Morrissey, 153 A.D.2d 609, 612, 544 N.Y.S.2d 643). In any event, absent a voluntary agreement between the parties regarding the financing of a minor child's college education, a parent may not be directed to contribute towards his child's college education unless special circumstances exist (see, e.g., Hirsch v. Hirsch, 142 A.D.2d 138, 144, 534 N.Y.S.2d 681; Jackson v. Jackson, 138 A.D.2d 455, 526 N.Y.S.2d 21; Kaplan v. Wallshein, 57 A.D.2d 828, 829, 394 N.Y.S.2d 439). The relevant factors in making such a determination are: (1) the educational background of the parents, (2) the child's academic ability, and (3) the parent's financial ability to provide the necessary funds (see, Hirsch v. Hirsch, supra; Kaplan v. Wallshein, supra).

At bar, there was no express agreement compelling the appellant to contribute to his daughter's college expenses. Although the appellant possesses a professional degree as a chiropractor, the petitioner mother...