James argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the separation agreement, obligating him to pay for the support and maintenance of Brianne until emancipation, as defined in article VII of the agreement, and also to pay college expenses. Marriage settlement agreements which are incorporated into decrees are to be interpreted in the same manner as other contracts and should be construed in accordance with the language of the document when ambiguity does not prevent doing so. The interpretation of a contract is a question of law. Thus, a reviewing court may interpret the contract independently of the trial court's judgment. 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.