Carl Allen Goetsch v. Joyce P. Goetsch
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 1/07/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090718 Carl Allen Goetsch v. Joyce P. Goetsch Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (DR-00-1970.02) THOMAS, J u d g e . This i s the fourth time these p a r t i e s have been b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t on a p p e a l f r o m d i v o r c e o r p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s . Goetsch v. Goetsch, 990 So. 2 d 403 ( A l a . C i v . ("Goetsch I I I " ) ; G o e t s c h v . G o e t s c h , A p p . 2008) 949 So. 2 d 155 ( A l a . C i v . 2090718 App. 2006) 2011202, ("Goetsch May 30, I I " ) ; and 2002), Goetsch 885 So. I"). 2d In v. 858 (Ala. Civ. G o e t s c h ("the f a t h e r " ) appeals the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i m p o s i t i o n of postminority educational parties' oldest son, Chris, on for the the basis Carl App. ("Goetsch support appeal, (No. 2003)(table) 1 this Goetsch benefit that The an the c o s t s of h i s c o l l e g e f a t h e r and acrimonious J o y c e P. post divorce f a m i l y and the provisions relevant to M i c h a e l , and C o u r t n e y . the ("the is the funds to m o t h e r " ) have relationship. issues surrounding In an o u t l i n e d the h i s t o r y of the c u s t o d y and p a r t i e s ' three G o e t s c h I I I , 990 So. children, Chris, 2d a t 406-11. h i s f a t h e r , but contact their this visitation t h e most c o n t a c t describes had earlier t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n , C h r i s has m a i n t a i n e d e v e n he the education. Goetsch o p i n i o n i s s u e d b y t h i s c o u r t , we of Chris b e n e f i c i a r y of a t r u s t t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e to p r o v i d e defray Allen as Of with minimal. The p a r t i e s have e a c h a l s o a p p e a r e d as a p e t i t i o n e r s e e k i n g a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h i s c o u r t . Ex p a r t e C a r l A l l e n G o e t s c h (No. 2091013, S e p t e m b e r 8, 2 0 1 0 ) , So. 3d (Ala. C i v . App. 2010) ( t a b l e ) ; Ex p a r t e J o y c e P. G o e t s c h (No. 2060259, F e b r u a r y 6, 2 0 0 7 ) , 8 So. 3d 1047 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) ( t a b l e ) . 1 2 2090718 Chris began his undergraduate U n i v e r s i t y i n A u g u s t 2008. father t h a t an answered the at Auburn I n December 2008, t h e m o t h e r an a c t i o n s e e k i n g p o s t m i n o r i t y The studies educational petition "abundant t r u s t [ h a d and filed support f o r C h r i s . asserted in his answer been] e s t a b l i s h e d for [ C h r i s ' s ] education." After the trial a trial court responsible expenses. entered for The over three 80% d a y s i n June and a judgment o r d e r i n g of Chris's August the postminority judgment s t a t e s , i n p a r t , 2009, father to be educational that " [ t ] h e C o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d and e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t s t h e a s s e r t i o n o f t h e [ f a t h e r ] t h a t he s h o u l d a v o i d any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s s o n ' s c o l l e g e education because of the t r u s t t h a t c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s i n f a v o r o f t h a t c h i l d . The C o u r t has e x a m i n e d t h e trust i n s t r u m e n t and r e c e i v e d t e s t i m o n y o f t h e T r u s t e e , by way o f d e p o s i t i o n , and d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e trust e x p l i c i t l y i n d i c a t e s i t s h o u l d n o t be u s e d t o d e f r a y o b l i g a t i o n s of the p a r e n t s . F u r t h e r , the Court notes that educational e x p e n s e s were n o t the primary p u r p o s e o f s a i d t r u s t , as e s t a b l i s h e d , and t h a t t h e available for education f o u r y e a r s o r age 23 and In a d d i t i o n , the judgment c o n t a i n s the t y p i c a l r e s t r i c t i o n s postminority-educational-support Chris to maintain f u l l - t i m e student, a "C" average, on awards, i n c l u d i n g r e q u i r i n g requiring that Chris be a and p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n 3 2090718 e x p i r e s upon C h r i s ' s c o m p l e t i o n o f an u n d e r g r a d u a t e d e g r e e o r Chris's states reaching that c h i l d was any the age of 23 years. i t " r e l a t e s back to the a c c e p t e d t o c o l l e g e and The date judgment that the further parties' each p a r t y i s c r e d i t e d w i t h e x p e n s e p a i d o r a d v a n c e d by e i t h e r t o d a t e " ; h o w e v e r , judgment does not incurred specify expenses that a d o l l a r amount the father must award previously pay. to of the The father appeals. Generally, educational court decision support 2d 1365, regarding So. 2d 986, 1366 those whether i s within after consideration B a y l i s s , 550 So. the the of the 987 d i s c r e t i o n of f a c t o r s s e t out ( A l a . 1989). ( A l a . C i v . App. factors is in 1992). conflict, f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s are presumed c o r r e c t . 676 So. court's the 2d 939, 941 ( A l a . C i v . App. l e g a l conclusions f a c t s are not 39 ( A l a . C i v . App. the trial i n Ex parte G a b e l v. L o r e s , When t h e the 608 evidence trial court's A b e r n a t h y v. S u l l i v a n , 1996). However, t h e i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of the trial law to such a p r e s u m p t i o n ; review clothed with t h o s e m a t t e r s i s de novo. 36, and postminority of H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , 978 2007). 4 So. 2d 2090718 In May 2008, Chris graduated from f a t h e r h o s t e d a b a r b e q u e f o r C h r i s and l a t e May o r e a r l y June 2008. high school. four friends i n e i t h e r Around that time, C h r i s and the f o r c o l l e g e and the father discussed generally Chris's plans father explained t o C h r i s t h a t a t r u s t s e t up by t h e parents, was K a r l and Anne G o e t s c h a v a i l a b l e t o pay father encouraged ("the for Chris's Chris to C h r i s ' s t r u s t , Dr. D o n a l d R o w e l l , The other sisters, trustee of Elizabeth Chris's his considering informed the the f a t h e r ' s Dr. plans, attending that of expenses. i s one the trust and of a postgraduate degree. the f a t h e r was and t h a t t h e m o t h e r was in at of the father's a few occasions point, one included California. would be able Dr. to Rowell fund p o s s i b l y even f u n d a t l e a s t his part C h r i s t h e n i n f o r m e d Dr. R o w e l l t h a t r e f u s i n g t o pay for Chris's going to take the college education. 5 education father to court s e e k payment o f what C h r i s t e r m e d a " p a r e n t a l for that trustees brother-in-law. of R o w e l l on which, college undergraduate education pay The Rowell. college Chris one father's grandparents"), educational trust Chris d i d correspond with regarding paternal contact The obligation" to to 2090718 C h r i s a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t Dr. t o pay f o r a new Infiniti denied G37 a u t o m o b i l e t h a t C h r i s had w h i c h c o s t an e s t i m a t e d Chris's request, response to C h r i s that if the initial education was R o w e l l advance t r u s t stating in from the used to purchase C h r i s t h a t the first his Dr. ... w o u l d be intended sports f u n d s t o pay should not year's c o l l e g e expenses u n t i l pay the for your Dr. for a anything trial had f a t h e r makes s e v e r a l a r g u m e n t s on court t h a t the trial court not intended to defray because education was the erred trial father was court not agreed ruled including because the n o t t h e t r u s t ' s p r i m a r y p u r p o s e and obligated trust trust the o b l i g a t i o n s of the p a r e n t s because, to pay 6 under California postminority on support. e r r e d when i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o u l d n o t be u s e d t o f u n d C h r i s ' s e d u c a t i o n was appeal, laptop toward h i s the pending p e t i t i o n seeking p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l The upset car." R o w e l l a l s o s a i d t h a t he trust Rowell electronic-mail $43,000 a a 2008 Dr. trust R o w e l l d i d , however, advance t r u s t with $43,000. "your grandparents outlay computer f o r C h r i s . s e l e c t e d -- funds law, and that the educational 2090718 support f o r C h r i s . we will first 2 However, b e c a u s e we address the father's find i t dispositive, argument t h a t the c o u r t d i d not p r o p e r l y consider C h r i s ' s t r u s t as a resource Chris to defray Ex parte a v a i l a b l e to college education. (stating that See a trial court the costs B a y l i s s , 550 considering financial of So. whether his 2d to relevant necessary, parents The factors that shall appear the child" (emphasis o m i t t e d ; funds of the t r u s t and 987 reasonable emphasis m o t h e r a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t b e c a u s e C h r i s has over the at must r e l y on the no a consider i n c l u d i n g p r i m a r i l y the f i n a n c i a l resources and own order p a r e n t t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t " s h a l l all trial and of the added)). control trustees to We r e j e c t t h e argument t h a t C a l i f o r n i a l a w w o u l d g o v e r n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what d u t y t h e f a t h e r m i g h t have t o s u p p o r t C h r i s ; b e c a u s e t h e d u t y t o s u p p o r t one's m i n o r c h i l d i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e s t a t e o f t h e p a r e n t ' s d o m i c i l e , the f a t h e r ' s p o t e n t i a l d u t y t o pay postminority educational s u p p o r t w o u l d a l s o be d e t e r m i n e d u n d e r t h e l a w o f t h e f a t h e r ' s d o m i c i l e Alabama. See Y a r b o r o u g h v. Y a r b o r o u g h , 2 90 U.S. 202, 211 (1933) ("The c h a r a c t e r and e x t e n t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n , and t h e s t a t u s o f t h e m i n o r , a r e determined o r d i n a r i l y , n o t by t h e p l a c e o f t h e m i n o r ' s r e s i d e n c e , b u t by t h e l a w o f t h e f a t h e r ' s d o m i c i l e . " ) ; Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d a t 993 ( s t a t i n g t h a t , " [ i ] n e x p a n d i n g t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e ( t h a t a d i v o r c e d , n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t has no d u t y to support h i s c h i l d a f t e r that c h i l d reaches majority) to i n c l u d e the college education exception, we are merely r e f u s i n g t o l i m i t the word ' c h i l d r e n ' to minor c h i l d r e n " ) . 2 7 2090718 disburse t h e f u n d s as t h e t r u s t e e s properly determined financial resource The trust to, educational the t r u s t was n o t an court available f o r Chris. instrument fund e s t a b l i s h e d intended that see f i t , t h e t r i a l clearly indicates f o r C h r i s by t h e p a t e r n a l among other expenses. things, The e v i d e n c e that the t r u s t g r a n d p a r e n t s was provide funding for at t r i a l included the d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f Dr. R o w e l l and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between Chris and educational education Dr. the correspondence costs Dr. and Chris's Dr. R o w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t f u n d i n g plans. regarding the trust Chris's was a p r i m a r y r e a s o n t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l established trustee, Rowell trust. with Chris was w i l l i n g of " t u i t i o n , Rowell In indicated to disburse fees, indicated rent, by addition, that trust food, Dr. Dr. Rowell, mail to Chris a l l o w a n c e and p e r s o n a l w o u l d be t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of Chris's parents. the purpose of paying for a established the trust for Chris. 8 as and books." "transportation, health-care further t e s t i f i e d that the paternal Rowell's funds t o d e f r a y the telephone, electronic grandparents that expenses" Dr. R o w e l l g r a n d p a r e n t s had i n mind college education when they D r . R o w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he 2090718 had expected education that and educational the that purpose trust he of stood the fund ready trust C h r i s ' s c o l l e g e t u i t i o n and C h r i s may would by to effectuate authorizing r e l a t e d expenses. established that the trust has as purposes funding C h r i s ' s c o l l e g e education trustees had indicated a willingness r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t from C h r i s t h a t the As n o t e d a b o v e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g to require a p a r e n t t o pay court must c o n s i d e r t h e p a r e n t s and a the payment the c h i l d . The comply t r u s t do trial may support. financial court A of with trial resources support, of is both court which i n d i c a t e s a l l potential court any extent t e r m u s e d by o u r supreme consider the so. educational financial the i t s main w h e t h e r and t o what postminority the of and t h a t one to of Thus, a l t h o u g h one i n Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s i s " f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s , " that college n o t have u l t i m a t e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e t r u s t f u n d s , evidence a trial Chris's of restricted not sources to c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y a p a r e n t ' s income when c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t o award postminority Wilburn, a 574 trial sufficient So. court educational 2d 839, 841 should consider estate, earning support. See ( A l a . C i v . App. whether capacity, 9 or Thrasher 1990). the income Instead, parent to v. "has provide 2090718 f i n a n c i a l assistance without undue h a r d s h i p . " So. c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g the 2d a t 841. resources Thus, a t r i a l Thrasher, considered determining and, if a child's grants or so, what percentage or scholarship amount support i s appropriate. that trial the court erred consideration Chris's trust. We f u n d s when in Therefore, related considered as C h r i s ' s f i n a n c i a l the above-quoted judgment, the t r i a l be u s e d t o pay specifically resource trust instrument i t was not o b l i g a t i o n the parents does shall the its by the the have trial trial been court. court's c o u r t determined t h a t the t r u s t c o u l d stated that any beneficiary from should for Chris's college education defray from for Chris's college expenses, excerpt father C h r i s ' s t r u s t , which, tuition certain postminority precluding i s a v a i l a b l e t o pay and of support agree w i t h the b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , discharge c o u r t s have whether t o award p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l educational In financial of the c h i l d i s not l i m i t e d t o o n l y those funds t h a t a r e e a r n e d by t h e c h i l d as i n c o m e ; i n f a c t , t r i a l often 574 legal be state made so liability 10 had that as of to any because the intended t o be not trust used to to support C h r i s . The "no the payments reduce, person to diminish, (including or the 2090718 t r u s t o r s and t h e t r u s t e e ) f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e b e n e f i c i a r y . " However, by d e t e r m i n i n g to defray Chris's postminority Chris's parents erred. U n t i l the Ex parte father f i r s t t h a t t h e t r u s t c o u l d n o t be were obligated trial B a y l i s s and should support, the i t to i t s progeny required to no imposed to pay expenses so, the trial any postminority obligation c o u r t was whether for ordering the educational the trial father to expenses. court financial resource reversing on father's other this Chris, for we pay of Chris's i t to consider available ground, we we to law. consider a v a i l a b l e to C h r i s . reverse Accordingly, the postminority required to must 80% by educational B e c a u s e i t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r C h r i s ' s t r u s t t o be a a v a i l a b l e to court f a c t o r s s e t out determine a f i n a n c i a l resource resource because such o b l i g a t i o n under the support, the t r i a l w h e t h e r t h e t r u s t was do c o u r t a p p l i e d the f a t h e r had Before educational be educational used financial the postminority remand t h i s Chris's Chris. pretermit judgment cause trust as to a Because we are discussion of the arguments i n f a v o r of r e v e r s a l . 3 We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d o n l y make i t s j u d g m e n t r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e o f filing of the p e t i t i o n seeking postminority educational 3 11 2090718 The mother's request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h writing. writing. s u p p o r t and n o t t o t h e d a t e C h r i s began h i s c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n , w h i c h p r e d a t e d t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n ; he i s c o r r e c t . See, e . g . , P r e u s s e l v . P r e u s s e l , 874 So. 2d 1124 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 12 2090718 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n the result. I a g r e e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d and t h e remanded to the trial court, but I do so for d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h o s e upon w h i c h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n explained below, I the trust construing believe c o n s t r u c t i o n l e d the from that instrument trial i t s consideration court as to issues trial court Ex r a i s e d by can parte the Bayliss, so finally 550 So. 2d Chris may be o r d e r e d t o pay e v e n t h o u g h t h e c h i l d has otherwise be emancipated. considered assistance need, of the i n order course, child." 550 to c h i l d has pursue d e p e n d s on the So. 987. 2d at erroneous trust Goetsch 13 his or in funds had a that, the remand, on address the resolve this 986 (Ala. dispute. 1989), our circumstances, e d u c a t i o n a l expenses of a Under B a y l i s s , i s whether the erred should a t t a i n e d t h e age As support from h i s supreme c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , u n d e r c e r t a i n parents relies. that that court reasons court educational father c o r r e c t l y and trial to e x c l u d e the I also believe that this other In and whether f i n a n c i a l need f o r p o s t m i n o r i t y parents. the case child o f m a j o r i t y and is the p r i m a r y f a c t o r to a need f o r her financial education. "financial Obviously, resources That of ... i f a child has 2090718 a v a i l a b l e f i n a n c i a l resources her education for B a y l i s s s u p p o r t from h i s or her p a r e n t s . c h i l d has her can the be by w h i c h t h e e x p e n s e s o f h i s f u l l y met, financial educational the resources expenses, the c h i l d w o u l d have no t o pay Likewise, only d e p e n d e n t on h i s o r h e r p a r e n t s f o r s u p p o r t . a c h i l d has no f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t h a t h i s or her p a r e n t s may burden. in Thus, every initially determine available to the p r o c e e d i n g t o any In this Section 4.1 of of p a r t , t h a t the u s e d when expenses [Chris] financial to further case, grandparents scope the Chris the expenses ordered to carry that case, of a the fund h i s or trial court financial her entire must resources education before considerations. evidence established shows a t r u s t instrument that the paternal trust for his provides, in benefit. pertinent " [ n ] e t income o r p r i n c i p a l o f t h e t r u s t may among other things,] ... In r e f u s i n g to c o n s i d e r resource or I t i s o n l y when [ C h r i s ] i s i n n e e d o f f u n d s t o meet t h e of[, i f the partially t o pay e d u c a t i o n a l Bayliss the child be need a p o r t i o n of h i s c h i l d w o u l d be or a v a i l a b l e t o C h r i s t o pay 14 reasonable [e]ducation the ... t r u s t f u n d s as his be of a educational 2090718 expenses, the t r i a l c o u r t concluded t h a t " e d u c a t i o n a l were n o t the p r i m a r y purpose of s a i d expenses trust...." I do n o t b e l i e v e i t m a t t e r s w h e t h e r t h e t r u s t f u n d s were intended that primarily for Chris's education. The settlors specifically expressed that the could use the principal and income Chris's reasonable educational inquiry was that whether the permissible the the expenses. The remains trustees trust only to pay pertinent t r u s t m a i n t a i n e d funds a v a i l a b l e use, p e r m i s s i b l e uses. from fact regardless the primacy of other t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t the t r u s t had a c c u m u l a t e d $237, 305.71 i n a s s e t s by t h e t i m e o f the trial. 4.1 of The the In t h a t regard, of for e v i d e n c e a l s o shows t h a t t h e trust i n s t r u m e n t gave t o t a l t h e t r u s t f u n d s were t o be u s e d , had from the a trust telephone, while he University, as funds the a laptop pursued computer, his that the and discretion to how committed to C h r i s to pay of t u i t i o n , Internet undergraduate h a v i n g r e f u s e d t o pay transportation undisputed costs t r u s t e e s , t o whom § health trust has 15 fees, access, degree as rent, food, and books at Auburn only i n c i d e n t a l costs, insurance. funds that Thus, the i t trustees such is have 2090718 designated college The should t o be u s e d t o pay the reasonable c o s t s of Chris's education. trial not be court nevertheless to C h r i s because "the t r u s t e x p l i c i t l y i n d i c a t e s i t s h o u l d not be trial 4.1, c o u r t was which a financial resource funds available used to defray considered concluded that those o b l i g a t i o n s of the p a r e n t s . " Presumably, the r e f e r r i n g i n i t s judgment t o the p r o v i s o t o § states " t h a t no p a y m e n t s t o o r f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f [ C h r i s ] s h a l l be made so as t o r e d u c e , d i m i n i s h o r d i s c h a r g e t h e l e g a l l i a b i l i t y o f any p e r s o n ( i n c l u d i n g t h e trustors and the trustee) f o r the support of [Chris]." The t r i a l c o u r t e v i d e n t l y reasoned t h a t , because a parent have a l e g a l l i a b i l i t y a child under B a y l i s s , the f u n d s w o u l d be t h e t r u s t i s t o be with C a l i f o r n i a trust settlors law. the instrument i n t e r p r e t e d and Hence, t h e by t h e p r o v i s o i n § 4.1 defray f o r the e d u c a t i o n a l expenses of intended that used to r e l i e v e a parent of t h a t However, t h e used to t o pay may specifically administered no trust liability. states that i n accordance s e t t l o r s must have intended o n l y t h a t the t r u s t funds c o u l d not liability that support C h r i s under C a l i f o r n i a 16 law. any p e r s o n w o u l d have In r e f e r r i n g to be to "legal 2090718 liability ... referring for ... support," t o any o b l i g a t i o n the settlors were not t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t that a c o u r t c o u l d i m p o s e i n v o l u n t a r i l y upon a p a r e n t u n d e r A l a b a m a law. U n l i k e A l a b a m a l a w , C a l i f o r n i a l a w does n o t a u t h o r i z e a state court to impose a duty on p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n a l expenses parents to fund the o f a c h i l d p a s t t h e age 18 u n l e s s t h e p a r e n t s have v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e d t o do s o . Cal. contains Fam. Code § 3901. The record no of See evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the parents v o l u n t a r i l y agreed t h a t the f a t h e r w o u l d pay f o r C h r i s ' s p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s he a t t a i n e d t h e age father has no o f 18. duty to any of Contrary the father's to the Hence, u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w , pay payment o f t h o s e e x p e n s e s after any of those expenses and the the by t h e t r u s t c a n n o t p o s s i b l y d e f r a y "legal liability" c o n c l u s i o n reached by to the support trial Chris. court, t e r m s o f t h e t r u s t do n o t p r e v e n t t h e t r u s t e e s f r o m p a y i n g of the e d u c a t i o n a l expenses the any t h e t r u s t e e s have a g r e e d t o f u n d . 4 T h e m a i n o p i n i o n r e j e c t s t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t on t h i s point because Alabama law, as the law of the parent's d o m i c i l e , c o n t r o l s the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the e x t e n t of the d u t y of a p a r e n t t o s u p p o r t a c h i l d . See So. 3d a t n.2. The f a t h e r i s n o t s e e k i n g t o a v o i d A l a b a m a l a w . The father 4 17 2090718 Because the terms of the instrument pay t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s f o r C h r i s ' s e d u c a t i o n , and b e c a u s e the evidence i s undisputed that purpose, funds as a a l l o w the t r u s t e e s to the trial financial t h a t f u n d s have b e e n d e s i g n a t e d court should resource have considered available a s s e s s i n g h i s need f o r B a y l i s s s u p p o r t . By the to that trial totally court dependent education. support essentially that that error, on his determined parents T h a t e r r o r r e s u l t e d i n an f a r exceeds C h r i s ' s t r u e the j u d g m e n t i s due remanded f o r t h e t r i a l t o be to those Chris when f a i l i n g t o do so, C h r i s would fund award of financial reversed his be college postminority need. and the For case c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s award i n l i g h t o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h e t r u s t f u n d t o pay many o f t h e of C h r i s ' s c o l l e g e for costs education. a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t , u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , a t r i a l c o u r t may i m p o s e upon him a d u t y to pay Chris's postminority educational support i f Chris does not have the financial resources a v a i l a b l e t o meet h i s e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s . The f a t h e r i s s i m p l y a r g u i n g t h a t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the trust funds to defray the costs of Chris's education, C a l i f o r n i a law g o v e r n s . A c c e p t i n g the f a t h e r ' s argument does n o t , i n any manner, v i o l a t e any law r e q u i r i n g the d u t y of s u p p o r t t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e l a w o f t h e d o m i c i l e o f t h e parent. 18 2090718 Because i t i s c l e a r t h a t the pay remand the trial father w i l l The court have t o pay will any agree to s c o p e o f a B a y l i s s award, a l l the expenses w i t h i n the trustees w i l l on have part to of not consider the whether remaining the expenses. f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he s h o u l d n o t have t o do so b e c a u s e undisputed e v i d e n c e showed t h a t he relationship. In B a y l i s s , the and the C h r i s have a s t r a i n e d supreme c o u r t held that the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t and t h e c h i l d i s a f a c t o r t h a t a trial court consider support. postminority should 550 So. however, "has strained r e l a t i o n s h i p between prevent the repeatedly when c o n s i d e r i n g child from college education." (Ala. Civ. reversed App. a educational r e f l e c t e d t h a t the such 2010] t o be support." So. having 1998) . solely at 987. that the parent and child the opportunity Stinson, no 729 because the 2d 864, has this of , Bruning, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 a 869 court postminority evidence impediment t o a not obtain So. instance of does to of court, existence imposition a complete award This r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r e n t and D u n i g a n v. 3d "In court's support so b r o k e n as stated S t i n s o n v. trial 2d an the at child was receipt of 2081150, O c t . 2010). trial 22, Although a 2090718 trial c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h e poor r e l a t i o n s between a p a r e n t and a c h i l d , i t c a n n o t , f o r t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e , p r e v e n t a c h i l d from receiving financial assistance Newman v. Newman, 667 So. 2d 1362, i n going to college. 1368 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . In i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t o b v i o u s l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between C h r i s and t h e f a t h e r would n o t d i m i n i s h in a n y way support. in the o b l i g a t i o n reassess t h a t f a c t o r when d e c i d i n g what c o n t r i b u t i o n , i f a n y , t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d the e d u c a t i o n a l expenses t h e t r u s t w i l l ordering retroactive So. 3d the father to that the t r i a l pay n.3. A court may award r e t r o a c t i v e only t o the date of the f i l i n g Civ. Bayliss t o t h e d a t e C h r i s began a t t e n d i n g at such support. have t o p a y f o r not cover. I a l s o agree w i t h t h e main o p i n i o n in court i n error h o w e v e r , on remand, I s e e no r e a s o n why t h e c o u r t may n o t a g a i n erred t o pay B a y l i s s I f i n d no b a s i s f o r p l a c i n g t h e t r i a l that regard; trial of the father U l l r i c h v. U l l r i c h , App. 1 9 9 9 ) . support college. Bayliss support of thep e t i t i o n for 736 So. 2d 638, 643 ( A l a . I f u r t h e r agree w i t h r e t r o a c t i v e award s h o u l d t h e f a t h e r t h a t any s p e c i f y the exact amount a w a r d e d a n d t h a t t h a t amount must be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d . 20 court See 2090718 Stanford 1993). the v. S t a n f o r d , 628 So. On remand, t h e t r i a l amounts i n c u r r e d by expenses since the date Bayliss support. The 2d 701, 704 court Chris should p o r t i o n of those expenses determine f o r recoverable of the f i l i n g trial ( A l a . C i v . App. court exactly educational of the p e t i t i o n f o r must then specify what n o t p a y a b l e by t h e t r u s t t h e f a t h e r s h a l l pay, i f any. 21
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
