If we can determine the meaning of an academic year, we don’t need to add in “whichever” occurs sooner". But, the more I read this provision, the less I like it. I hope the situation doesn’t deteriorate to the point that a judge is asked to interpret it.
If I’m the judge, here’s how I would look at it:
The word “or” can be exclusive or additive. It can mean “OR” like ONLY X OR ONLY Y..but it could also mean X and/or Y. So, I would look at the implications.
Scenario #1: Child gets a bachelor’s degree at 21. Should Dad have to pay for 2 years of grad school? Maybe..not clear from the language.
Scenario #2: Child drops out of school after two years at age 20. At age 52, he decides to go back to complete his degree. Does Dad have to pay? If I say “yes” then that clearly makes the “or until she reaches the age of 23” a nullity. The decree would have been just the same had it said “pay for 4 years”
Therefore: Since the “until age 23” language was added for a purpose, I find that the OR is exclusive. If one of the conditions are satisfied, then Dad doesn’t have to pay for more education.
Makes sense to me, but would a judge apply solid logic or maybe make a reasonable interpretation that favor’s the child’s well being? It seems like an uncomfortable amount of ambiguity if it were my divorce agreement.
This is kind of like employee performance appraisals where everyone is expected to “exceed expectations”. Hey, if the expectation is that “work will be done on time”, and you expect people to exceed that by getting stuff in early, then the actual expectation is not getting work done on time, the expectation is to get it done early!
And when C is defined as “average”, what does that mean? Is it average for students who actually take the class? Average for admitted students who have the prerequisites and are technically allowed to register for it, even if they do not? Average for the person on the street? E.g. if I get a C in Organic Chemistry 410, did I do average with respect to the typical Chemistry student, or average with respect to the man on the street with no background in chemistry, in the sense that if you just up and grabbed someone off the street and put him into Organic Chemistry 410 you would expect him to get a C?
I would also like the language to be more clear just for my sake. However, I can’t see a 21 year old “child” who has had a tuition free ride for four years being seen by a judge to be neglected. It would be a great issue for appeal.
Well, I think we both know that a C isn’t “average” in any sense because of grade inflation. The median GPA in my law school class is 3.05. That’s slightly over a B. If the “average” student has over a B, then B is average for the class. They are just arbitrary letters that don’t mean what they purport to mean.
But in this scenario, I can’t see a judge saying that if the kid has a 2.3 GPA he is a dumbass and lets Dad off of the hook for paying. Unless he flunks out, how does someone at the bottom of the class not have the “aptitude or ability” for school? The school says he’s doing fine.
The school has a vested interest in keeping the student in school, and it has little/nothing to do with the success of the student - there are obviously some exceptions to the rule where competition is key to the better schools - but if you are breathing and paying tuition, the school really wants to keep you enrolled.
I agree, but could you see a judge saying, “Dad, you are right. Your kid is a fucking retard and the school is just trying to milk you dry. Son, you are an idiot and if you want to get your college degree, you pay for it on your own dime because we all know that the taxpayers will have to support your dumb ass anyways.”
Hyperbole, of course, but as ridiculous as judges can be sometimes, would you think that they would cut off tuition for a kid because he didn’t meet a certain GPA requirement?
I honestly interpreted “aptitude and ability for post secondary education” to mean simply ability to get accepted and stay enrolled. I think the only way a judge would rule that the child did not meet the “aptitude and ability” test would be to flunk out, maybe even more than once. At the extreme, I think it would void the father’s responsibilities to pay for college for a child who had, say, been in a car accident causing them to be brain damaged and permanently incapable of college-level work.
That’s the level that I and almost any judge would read the clause. It’s to prevent the child who never goes to college from saying, “Dad, you owe me 4 years of tuition, and since I didn’t go to school, the equivalent money value is $XXX, so get your checkbook out.”
we’ve all heard anecdotes where judge’s have done stranger things - but no, what I see happening more often than not is a father getting strung along for an education that will go nowhere. Add to that the number of “online universities” and “trade schools” that are ‘crazy’ expensive for said courses.
In a truly vindictive divorce - the x could literally bankrupt the payee with such language in the divorce decree by simply encouraging the child (rightfully in an evil sort of way) to ‘keep plugging at it - you’ll make it some day - here’s that course in whatevershotatthemoment you really talked about last month’
eta - what is “4 academic years” in this sense anyway? 4 years traditional? 8 semesters? x number of hours or courses? whats the required course load for the student to take to qualify?
I think that’s where the reasonableness aspect, which is part of every judicial decision, comes into play. If the kid is brilliant and is accepted at Harvard, then Dad pays for Harvard.
If the kid is moderately intelligent, but wants to attend the University of Jackoff Studies online with a tuition of $50k per year, Dad could reasonably argue that in-state tuition at a better school is only $10k per year.
I can’t see why this would be different than any other contract or even a tort. If someone destroys your house through their negligence, they should provide you temporary lodging. That doesn’t mean full service, presidential suite treatment at the Four Seasons. It has to be reasonable.
It seems like a bad idea that forced tuition payments be put into a divorce decree anyway. If they were married, there would be no guarantee that they would pay for the kid’s college. But now that they’re divorced, one parent is on the hook for 4 years tuition. That seems wrong.
Dad could argue - Mom would argue that x course is not available at the cheaper school, etc - if nothing else - she bankrupts him thru court/attorney fees.
Reasonableness is hard to determine when MY kids education/future is on the line.
And I disagree that just because kid can get into harvard means dad has to pay for harvard - Dad’s income may not be sufficient - and indebting him (dad) thru student loans would be an insane thing to do, but I could see it happening.
(ETA - some of this depends clearly on the relationship between dad and child and lesser extent to mom - since if they have a relationship, many of these scenarios would not have to be played out via the court system and reasonableness can be decided the way a more ‘traditional’ family would decide such things)
IANAL, but I was subject to a similar arrangement once upon a time.
Make sure the child gets very good grades and completes his education on a timely basis. Then the wording will be a moot point. Don’t test the system – it could cost more than it’s worth in lawyer and court fees.
In response to the above two posts, I was under the belief that this was an agreed upon settlement. Supposedly with Dad making a sufficient income to provide for 4 years of tuition. If he doesn’t like the implications of a Harvard tuition, he should have negotiated a better deal.
If a judge forced this on him, all of these issues would make for a great appeal. He should get clarification of what the cost of 4 years of tuition would be.