Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Property

Ex parte Christopher

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2021 · Property
145 So. 3d 60 (Ala. 2013)
Updated
Propertydivorcechild supportpostminority educational supportstatutory interpretation§ 30-3-1age of majoritychild means minor

Facts

Carolyn and Phillip Christopher divorced in 2010, and they had one adult child and two younger children at that time. Four days before their son C.C. turned 19, Phillip petitioned the trial court to require Carolyn to contribute to C.C.'s college expenses. Carolyn argued that she could not afford to contribute and that Bayliss was unconstitutional. The trial court ordered her to pay 25% of C.C.'s college expenses, amounting to 25% of $9,435 per semester.

Issue

Does § 30-3-1, Ala. Code 1975, authorize a court in a divorce action to order a noncustodial parent to pay college expenses for a child over the age of 19 when the request is filed before the child reaches majority? More specifically, was Ex parte Bayliss correctly decided?

Rule

Under § 30-3-1, the term "children" means minors, not adults. Because courts may not add omitted language to a statute or alter the legislatively fixed age of majority, a divorce court has no authority under § 30-3-1 to require a noncustodial parent to pay postminority educational support for a child over age 19.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Birmingham, Dana Mercer and Joel Mercer divorced when their daughter, Ava, was 17. Two weeks before Ava turned 19, Joel asked the divorce court to order Dana to pay half of Ava’s upcoming college tuition and housing costs for semesters after her 19th birthday.

Should the court grant Joel’s request under Alabama’s divorce child-custody and support statute?

Explanation. The majority held that the statute’s reference to the children of the marriage means minors, not adults. A divorce court therefore lacks statutory authority to require a parent to pay postminority educational support, even if the request is filed before the child turns 19. The defect is lack of statutory power, not timing or parental ability to pay.