Should Educational Expenses Be Considered in the Court's Determination of Temporary Spousal Support?

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: Written by Michael G. Loeffler
• Publication year: 2022
• Citation: Vol. 44 No. 1

SHOULD EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES BE CONSIDERED IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION OF TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT?

Written by Michael G. Loeffler^*

In re Marriage of Maher & Strawn¹ is a fascinating 2021 decision from Fourth District Court of Appeal. There, the court held that for purposes of determining permanent spousal support, the trial court's consideration of the mother's payment of the adult children's college expenses was proper, and not an abuse of discretion.

The court first noted, "[i]n the only Supreme Court case on point, the supporting spouse's monthly expenses included $350 for an adult child's college education."² The court then noted that "[s]everal courts of appeal have reached similar conclusions."³

The court then stated:
Perhaps the most widely cited case of this genre is Paul ..., which holds that a supported spouse's expenditures on college tuition and related costs may appropriately be considered as a factor in establishing need for increased spousal support.⁴
The court then went on to note:
Paul noted that circumstances affecting spousal support include 'practically everything which has a legitimate bearing upon the present and prospective matters relating to the lives of the parties....⁵ This may appropriately include 'making legitimate educational expenditures' that ' necessarily' impact support.⁶

The court went on to acknowledge that there is another line of cases, most notably In re Marriage of Serna⁷ that "take a contrary approach."⁸

Having noted this apparent dichotomy, the court held that the college expense should be included, consistent with the line of cases following Paul:

'[T]he fact that the State of California maintains so many institutions of higher learning at public expense' demonstrates that a college education 'should be had, if possible, by all of its citizens.' (Hale v. Hale (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 879, 882-883, 132 P.2d 67.) Post-secondary education is indispensable for most highly paid jobs. And as most parents surely know, even at state supported colleges and universities,

[Page 12]

tuition, room and board is very expensive. Meanwhile, with 18 as the age of majority, it would be extremely rare for a child to complete college before becoming an 'adult.' Especially in families where parents emphasized the importance of post-high school education, expected that they would contribute financially to the children's higher education, and had the financial means to do so, it is both unrealistic and inequitable to preclude the trial court from considering parental contributions to post-high school educational expenses as a factor in determining the supporting spouse's ability to pay

...