Pamela T. v. Marc B.
Facts
The parties divorced in 2008, and their judgment of divorce and related agreements were silent as to college expenses. Their older son, who has learning and anxiety disorders but graduated from a selective public high school, was accepted to Syracuse University, SUNY Binghamton, SUNY Buffalo, and other schools; he chose Syracuse, which costs about $53,000 per year and offered $3,000 in aid, while the SUNY schools cost about $18,000 per year. Both parents are attorneys with roughly comparable annual incomes of just over $100,000, though the mother has greater assets and the father has continued paying relatively low child support set years earlier. The mother sought equal sharing of college and related costs, while the father agreed to contribute something for the older child but only up to a SUNY-level amount.
Issue
When a divorce judgment is silent on college expenses, may the court limit a parent's obligation for a child's private college costs to a SUNY-level amount merely because a less expensive SUNY school was available? The court also had to decide whether to order contribution now for the younger child's future college costs and for college preparation and application expenses.
Rule
Under Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (c) (7), a court may direct a parent to contribute to college expenses having regard for the circumstances of the case, the parties' circumstances, the child's best interests, and justice. In deciding whether and how much to award, the court considers the parents' educational background and financial ability, the child's academic ability and endeavors, and the type of college most suitable for the child. The statute does not itself provide for a SUNY cap, and there is no presumption that a parent's obligation is limited to SUNY costs; where the parent seeking the cap has the financial ability to contribute to the child's actual college expenses, there is no basis to impose it. Requests for future college expenses are premature when the child's plans, school choice, and costs are uncertain, and requests to modify add-on obligations require proof of an unanticipated and substantial change in circumstances.
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
Test yourself
If Owen argues that his contribution must be limited to the cost of a SUNY education simply because a cheaper SUNY option existed, how should the court rule?