Titus v. Titus, 73.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 73.,73. |
| Citation | 311 Mich. 434,18 N.W.2d 883 |
| Parties | TITUS v. TITUS. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County, in Chancery; George W. Sample, Judge.
Divorce action by Barbara Titus against Dean W. Titus. From a decree amending the divorce decree so as to provide for college education for a daughter of the parties, defendant appeals.
Decree affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Albert J. Rapp, of Ann Arbor, for plaintiff and appellee.
Williamson & Ready, by Francis T. Ready, all of Monroe, for defendant and appellant.
The amended decree appealed from makes no mention as to what educational institution Rosemary shall be compelled to attend. I do not agree that this court should attempt to dictate that she must attend a college in this State.
Under a former consent decree the defendant paid $825 per year until June 1, 1943, at about which time Rosemary became 18 years of age, graduated from high school, and desired to continue her education. No payments were made after June 1, 1943, up to the entry of the instant amended decree December 14, 1943. The record shows that the defendant has an average income in excess of $10,000 per year. The circuit judge decreed that he pay $800 per year for the tuition, room and board of Rosemary for collegiate education, and $25 per month for her support and maintenance, making a total of $1,100 per year, until she becomes 21 years of age, approximately 2 1/2 years. The need for this amount was established by the proofs, and the ability of the defendant to pay it was likewise fully established. I see no occasion to reduce the amount or to remand for further testimony as to the ability of the defendant to pay. The decree should be affirmed without modification, with costs to appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree amending a divorce decree. The amendatory decree provided for college education for a daughter of the parties, now about 20 years of age, at a cost of $800 per year. The provisions decreeing a divorce and alimony were left undisturbed.
It appears from the testimony of the daughter, Rosemary, that she is a graduate of Ann Arbor high school, having graduated in June, 1943; that she desires to continue her education and to take social service or kindergarten collegiate work; that she has no desire for business work or to take any business college training; that she is presently employed but has saved no money. She further testified that she had never discussed her ambitions to go to college with her father for the reason that she always felt uncomfortable with him; that her scholastic record in high school over a period of 4 1/2 years was as follows: 2 1/2 units which she averaged B; 10 3/4 units which she averaged C; 3 1/4 units which she averaged D; that her high school scholastic work was not sufficiently high to enable her to be admitted to the university of Michigan and that she had made no effort to gain admission to any Michigan school offering the same course as at Rockford College for Women at Rockford, Illinois, where plaintiff desires that Rosemary attend.
Plaintiff testified that Rockford College is noted for its good courses, and that the school is well directed, with a strong faculty, and Rosemary would be under close direction; also, that it is the most moderate priced school that she knew of, and in her opinion the environment would be better for Rosemary in a strictly girls' school than at Michigan State College; that the tuition at Rockford College is $800 per year, including board and room, and that she did not wish her daughter to attend a coeducational school and that she believed the cost of attending Michigan State College would be greater than that of attending Rockford College.
Rosemary's sole proficiency is in art, in which her standing was B.
Defendant and appellant claims Rosemary's scholastic record is not sufficiently high to warrant her being sent to college and that she has no aptitude for higher education.
Appellant also claims the trial judge was disqualified on the alleged ground that he had advised both parties to the cause concerning custody and support of the minor children, outside of the courtroom and in the absence of the other party, and that his refusal to grant a change of venue or call in an outside judge was error, and that he erroneously reopened a hearing in this matter and requested introduction of further evidence.
Act No. 255, Pub.Acts 1939, Comp.Laws 1943 Supp. § 12739-1, Stat.Ann.1944 Cum.Supp. § 25.97 (1), provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...the prescribed statutory age, but limited such support to the age of majority, which was then twenty-one years. Titus v. Titus, 311 Mich. 434, 437, 18 N.W.2d 883 (1945); Johnson v. Johnson, 346 Mich. 418, 426, 78 N.W.2d 216 (1956). 4 However, the subsequent We begin our analyses by looking ......
-
Strom v. Strom
...138 Wash. 174, 244 P. 264, 246 P. 27, 47 A.L.R. 110; Underwood v. Underwood, 1931, 162 Wash. 204, 209, 298 P. 318; Titus v. Titus, 1945, 311 Mich. 434, 18 N.W.2d 883; Mapes v. Mapes, 1953, 336 Mich. 137, 57 N.W.2d 471; Stoner v. Weiss, 1924, 96 Okl. 285, 222 P. 547; Payette v. Payette, 1931......
-
Dorman v. Dorman
...879, 132 P.2d 67; Hart v. Hart (1948), 239 Iowa 142, 30 N.W.2d 748; Clark v. Graves (1955), Ky., 282 S.W.2d 146; Titus v. Titus (1945), 311 Mich. 434, 18 N.W.2d 883; Lund v. Lund (1950), 96 N.H. 283, 74 A.2d 557; Straver v. Straver (1948), 140 N.J.Eq. 480, 59 A.2d 39; Cohen v. Cohen (1948),......
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 56
...of the child after age 17. The Court stated 336 Mich. at page 139, 57 N.W.2d at page 472: 'The effect of our holding in Titus v. Titus, 311 Mich. 434, 18 N.W.2d 883, was that a showing that a 20 year old daughter had finished high school and desired to receive a college education, and that ......