Title: Ogle v. Ogle

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

156 So. 2d 345 (1963)
James Harlan OGLE
v.
Mildred Brook OGLE.
6 Div. 657.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 5, 1963.
*346 Godwin, Morgan & Hughes, Birmingham, for appellant.
Nina Miglionico, Birmingham, for appellee.
GOODWYN, Justice.
This is an appeal by the husband from a decree modifying a support and maintenance provision of a divorce decree.
The original decree, rendered on January 28, 1946, gave to the mother the custody of the parties' two minor children, a daughter seven years of age and a son three years of age, and provided for payment by the father to the mother of $125 per month "for alimony for herself and for support and maintenance of the said minor children, the first payment to be due on the first day of February 1946 and continue each month thereafter until Richard Ogle, the younger of the two minor children, shall enter public school, after which time the monthly payments shall be $100, * * *."
On December 23, 1947, the decree was modified by changing the amount allowed for support and maintenance from $125 to $112.50 per month. For a review of that decree, see Ogle v. Ogle, 251 Ala. 623, 38 So. 2d 864.
In January, 1957, Mrs. Ogle wrote a letter to Mr. Ogle stating, in substance, that she felt $65 a month would be a proper amount for him to pay thereafter since the daughter was no longer dependent upon her for support. Mr. Ogle then started making payments of $65 per month.
On October 18, 1960, Mrs. Ogle filed a petition to modify the decree so as to require the father to pay the sum of $200 per month "for the support and maintenance of his said son until he reaches the age of 21 years or so long as he continues in college or is in a position to support himself." The petition, as amended, alleges that the son is 18 years of age and is a student at the University of Alabama; that complainant is unable to keep him in college; that his expenses are approximately $200 a month; that the son is in need of support and maintenance from his father for his continued education; that both complainant and respondent are college graduates; that respondent is well able to contribute to the education of his son; that, at the time of the original decree in 1946, respondent was earning approximately $300 per month and that his income is now more than $1,000 per month.
Respondent's demurrer to the petition being overruled, he then filed an answer. Both the demurrer and answer are grounded principally on respondent's contention that the petition does not show a sufficient change in circumstances, since the modification agreed to by the parties in January 1957, to warrant the modification prayed for; that a college education is not a necessary ; and that there is no legal or equitable duty on a father to furnish his child with a college education.
Respondent also alleges that he has remarried, has two children by his second marriage, and that his second wife is not employed.
There is evidence that petitioner is now an employee of Jefferson County earning a gross of $364.66 per month and a net of $291.13 after deductions for income tax, social security tax and hospital insurance.
Evidence on the petition was taken orally before the trial court. Mrs. Ogle was the only witness.
*347 On November 17, 1960, a decree of modification was rendered providing that "respondent pay to complainant as alimony, support and maintenance for herself and the minor son of the marriage the sum of One Hundred Thirty Dollars ($130.00) a month for the school months (while the said minor son is at the University of Alabama) and the sum of Sixty-five Dollars ($65.00) a month for the school vacation months, to-wit the months of June, July and August." The decree also provides that the respondent pay $100 to complainant for her solicitor's services in the proceeding. Complainant prays that we allow an additional solicitor's fee in connection with this appeal.
There has been an abridgement of the record by agreement of the parties, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26.
The basic question for decision boils down to this: Can the father of a minor child, over sixteen years of age and in the mother's custody under a divorce decree, be required to contribute toward the cost of a college education for such child?
Appellant's position perhaps can be stated best by quoting the following from his briefs, viz:
Code 1940, Tit. 34, § 35, supra, to the extent here pertinent, provides as follows:
Sections 297 and 301, Code 1940, Tit. 52, as amended, supra, provide, to the extent here pertinent, as follows:
The object of the compulsory education law is that all children shall be educated at least to the extent thereby prescribed. In other words, it is a minimum educational requirement. We do not think it was intended to deny to a court of equity the authority to require the father of a minor ward of the court (who is in his mother's custody pursuant to a decree divorcing his mother and father) to contribute to the education of the ward after he reaches sixteen years of age. Although it does not appear that this principle has been specifically spelled out by any decision of this court, there are cases which lend support to it. See: Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 598, 599, 25 So. 2d 673; Farmer v. Coleman, 231 Ala. 527, 528, 529, 165 So. 778; Wells v. Wells, 230 Ala. 430, 431, 161 So. 794.
While there are divergent views on the question, it seems to us that the cases from other jurisdictions holding that a father may be required to contribute toward the college education of his minor child, who is in his mother's custody pursuant to a divorce decree, are supported by the better reasoning. Among such cases are Pass v. Pass, 238 Miss. 449, 118 So. 2d 769, and Esteb v. Esteb, 138 Wash. 174, 244 P. 264, 47 A.L.R. 110. From Pass v. Pass, we quote the following:
There is no detailed evidence concerning the aptitude of the child for a college education. However, the fact that, when the petition for modification was filed, he had already entered the University of Alabama as an engineering student is sufficient, we think, to support a finding of his aptitude for a college education, particularly in the absence of any indication whatever of his inaptitude.
For annotations giving cases both pro and con on the question, see: 56 A.L.R.2d 1207, 1220; 133 A.L.R. 902, 911; 47 A.L.R. 118.
Pursuant to appellee's petition, we think it appropriate, under the circumstances of this case, that the sum of $100 be allowed appellee as a fee for her solicitor for representing her on this appeal. It is so ordered. See: Isom v. Isom, 273 Ala. 599, 600, 143 So. 2d 455; Frazier v. Frazier, 273 Ala. 53, 58, 134 So. 2d 205; Gambrell v. Gambrell, 268 Ala. 671, 673, 110 So. 2d 248, and cases there cited.
Affirmed, with allowance to appellee of an additional solicitor's fee.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.