The general rule is that the obligation of a parent to support a child terminates when the child reaches majority. Ambiguity exists where the language is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Language is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree on its meaning. In this case, the language of the separation agreement is plain and unambiguous. Clearly, James has an obligation to provide for Brianne's educational expenses and a continuing obligation for child support until emancipation, as defined in the agreement.
Dieter offers little guidance.
In Dieter, the mother sought payment of college expenses but also alleged a failure to pay child support. The trial court entered an order determining, in part, that the parties believed that child support expired. No such belief is shared by the parties here. James argues that the trial court, in effect, deletes critical terms of the separation agreement while adding others to clarify the language of the agreement. A court construes the settlement provisions within a dissolution judgment so as to give effect to the intention of the parties, and where the terms are unambiguous, the parties' intent is determined solely from the language of the instrument.