Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a divorce settlement agreement requiring the husband to pay college expenses applied while the daughter maintained passing grades and attended school continuously during the normal school year. The court upheld the trial court’s interpretation that full-time attendance did not require completing a specific number of credit hours each semester or conforming to the university’s definition of full-time student. The judgment requiring reimbursement for the daughter’s college expenses was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the settlement agreement's requirement that the daughter attend school full time required her to complete and receive credit for a full course load each semester.
- Whether the trial court impermissibly modified, rather than reasonably clarified, the final divorce decree by interpreting full-time attendance as continuous attendance during the normal school year.
- Whether the trial court could award expenses for spring 2012 and later semesters despite the wife's testimony that she was not seeking reimbursement for spring 2012 and the university's classification of the daughter as part-time during that semester.
Holdings
- Under the parties' settlement agreement, attending school full time means continuous attendance during the normal school year; the agreement did not require the daughter to complete and receive credit for a full course load each semester.
- The trial court reasonably clarified the final divorce decree rather than impermissibly modifying it.
- Once the settlement agreement was approved and incorporated into the final divorce decree, husband's contractual obligation to pay qualifying college expenses became an enforceable court order, and the trial court could require payment for the semesters at issue.
Key quotations
“Thus, in order for the court to require husband to pay daughter’s college expenses, these two conditions must have been met.” (297 Ga. at 73-74)
“We find that the plain language of the parties’ agreement does not demand such an interpretation, nor is there any evidence that the parties intended such requirements.” (297 Ga. at 74-75)
“A trial court is not permitted to modify the terms of a divorce decree in a contempt proceeding, but is authorized to interpret or clarify the decree.” (297 Ga. at 76)
“Given that the parties’ agreement neither limited daughter to attending college two semesters per year, nor required that she continuously attend classes year-round, we conclude that the trial court’s order requiring husband to reimburse wife for all daughter’s college expenses incurred as of the date of the hearing was based on a reasonable clarification of the final divorce decree.” (297 Ga. at 77)
Factual background
Gary Don Mims and Lynn Bassford Mims married in 1986 and divorced in 2008. Their settlement agreement, incorporated into the final divorce decree, required husband to pay the costs of a college education for each child so long as the child maintained passing grades and attended school full time. Their youngest daughter attended Valdosta State University continuously during the normal school year from fall 2010 through fall 2013, although she withdrew from some courses and completed only nine credit hours in spring 2012.
Procedural history
The parties divorced in 2008, and their settlement agreement was incorporated into the final divorce decree. In 2012, wife filed a contempt action alleging that husband had failed to pay their daughter's college expenses. The trial court ordered husband to pay qualifying expenses for nine semesters, offset by certain financial aid, and declined to hold him in contempt because he had not received prior notice of the expenses. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted husband's application for discretionary appeal and affirmed.