Title: Dorman v. Dorman
Citation: 241 N.E.2d 50, 251 Ind. 272
Docket Number: 768S108
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 1968

251 Ind. 272 (1968)
241 N.E.2d 50
DORMAN
v.
DORMAN.
No. 768S108.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed October 18, 1968.
*273 Donald R. Ewers, and Schnatter and Ewers, of Jeffersonville, for appellant.
Howard J. Snyder and Pointer, Snyder, Paynter and Risinger, of Jeffersonville, for appellee.
LEWIS, C.J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Clark Superior Court in a proceeding brought by the appellant, John Dorman, to modify a divorce decree. The appeal was originally taken to the Appellate Court of Indiana and was transferred to this Court pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1968 Repl.), § 4-214, and Supreme Court Rule 2-41 (1967). Dorman v. Dorman (1968), 143 Ind. App. 94, 238 N.E.2d 492.
On June 16, 1959, the Clark County Circuit Court awarded appellee Edna Dorman a divorce from appellant John Dorman. The parties' three children, aged 10, 9 and 4 years, were placed in custody of the appellee mother, with support awarded in the sum of Fifty Dollars per week to be continued until the children attained the age of Eighteen years, and then such sum to be reduced proportionately as each child attains such age. Subsequently, on November 7, 1961, the Circuit Court of Clark County reduced the support to the sum of Forty Dollars per week. On July 1, 1967, appellant filed a petition to modify the divorce decree asking that the support payment be reduced proportionately in that two of the children *274 had reached the age of Eighteen years. On July 24, 1967, appellee filed a petition to modify the divorce decree, asking that the support payments be continued in that the two children were attending Indiana University.
The testimony given at the hearing on these petitions to modify the divorce decree was not recorded. Upon motion by the appellant, the Trial Court made the following findings of fact:
Subsequent to the hearing on the petitions, the Clark Superior Court entered the following order:
Appellant assigns as error the Trial Court's overruling of his motion for new trial. Appellant specifically argues that the judgment is:
Appellant additionally argues that the support awarded by the Trial Court was in gross abuse of the sound discretion of that court.
The contentions of the parties to this litigation present two intermingled questions, to-wit: Is support for a college education (more specifically: education beyond the twelfth year of education provided by the public schools), when warranted by appropriate circumstances, within the contemplation of Indiana's statutory provisions on support and custody, or within the purview of the common-law rule which renders a parent liable for the necessities supplied to his minor child?
The judicial climate has not, in years past, been readily receptive to an affirmative position on the above questions. See Middlebury College v. Chandler (1844), 16 Vt. 683, 42 Am. Dec. 537. This Court, as recently as 1959, pointed out that:
*276 The statement of the Court in Haag, supra, is undoubtedly correct, if the "general rule" refers to a mere head-count of the various jurisdictions. It appears, however, that of those jurisdictions that have faced the question squarely in recent years, only Pennsylvania has remained completely static in light of the changing demands for education in our society. A discerning review of the decisions rendered by the jurisdictions still tied to some degree to the "general rule" uncovers two significant factors for our consideration:
We note that the following jurisdictions have directly included the expenses of a college education as an element of the support allowance: Hale v. Hale (1942), 55 Cal. App. 2d 879, 132 P.2d 67; Hart v. Hart (1948), 239 Iowa 142, 30 N.W.2d 748; Clark v. Graves (1955), Ky., 282 S.W.2d 146; Titus v. Titus (1945), 311 Mich. 434, 18 N.W.2d 883; Lund v. Lund (1950), 96 N.H. 283, 74 A.2d 557; Straver v. Straver (1948), N.J. Eq., 59 A.2d 39; Cohen v. Cohen (1948), 193 Misc. 106, 82 N.Y.S.2d 513; Atchley v. Atchley (1945), 29 Tenn. App. 124, 194 S.W.2d 252; Jackman v. Short (1941), Or., 109 P.2d 860, 133 A.L.R. 887.
In light of the prominence of several of the jurisdictions above, and the dates of the decisions, we agree with what now appears to be an understatement in Haag v. Haag, supra, that:
*277 While at least one jurisdiction, Jackman v. Short, supra, has expressly criticized the reasoning of past (circa 1930) Indiana decisions on the question, we are of the opinion that Indiana has not remained static in relation to the growing prominence of higher education as a necessity for both this State's citizens and the State itself. The first expression of opinion in this State on the propriety of required support for a higher education was rendered in Morris v. Morris (1930), 92 Ind. App. 65, 69, 171 N.E. 386.
The legal position of Morris, supra, was re-affirmed in Hachat v. Hachat (1947), 117 Ind. App. 294, 71 N.E.2d 927. In 1959, this Court in Haag, supra, re-affirmed a portion of the Morris, supra, opinion, but indicated by citation and quotation of an American Law Reports Annotation, 56 A.L.R.2d 1209, that exceptions to the basic Morris Rule were recognized in other jurisdictions, and if sufficiently urged, could be recognized in Indiana. See, for example, Carey v. Carey (1961), 132 Ind. App. 30, 34, 171 N.E.2d 487. The Court, in Haag, supra, stated:
The legislature, in 1961, amended its statutory provisions for support allowances to include an express reference to higher education. Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1968 Repl.), § 3-1219, now provides:
The language of Burns' § 3-1219 renders but one clear and unequivocal interpretation: The Trial Court may, within its sound discretion, require specifically, a total or partial contribution by the father to the advanced education of the minor child or children under that court's jurisdiction. As we have outlined previously, this interpretation is altogether consistent with the present judicial attitude concerning the question of college support.
*279 Therefore, appellant's contention that as a matter of law the Trial Court erred in imposing the legal obligation of support for a college education for his two minor daughters, is unacceptable.
Appellant additionally argues in his brief to this Court that the Trial Court's judgment and order was not supported by substantial evidence. We find it clear, however, from the "findings of fact" compiled by the Superior Court of Clark County to facilitate appeal, that the Trial Court was sufficiently informed of:
Therefore, appellant's contention that there was not substantial evidence to support the judgment, also must be rejected.
The only remaining question of merit presented by the appellant, therefore, is whether the Trial Court abused grossly its sound discretion in ordering support for the college-bound daughters in addition to the third younger daughter.
As indicated above, the 1961 amendment to Burns' § 3-1219, supra, did not alter this rule of review. It is important to recognize, in resolving appellant's contention, what "sound discretion" of the Trial Court represents.
We recognize the force of appellant's argument that a man earning $75 a week in take-home pay is not in a position to send two children to college simultaneously. We recognize also, however, that litigation of this nature involves many countervailing factors and that the Trial Court must weigh these elements with careful scrutiny to achieve an equitable result.
On review of the record, we note several of these factors, which in our opinion, persuasively and adequately demonstrate that the judgment of the Trial Court was the result of a conscionable effort to achieve a fair, compassionate, and equitable resolution of the issue before the court.
From this evidence, and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, we cannot overturn, as a gross abuse of discretion, the judgment rendered by the Clark Superior Court. In turning to another jurisdiction, we find that Wisconsin would explicitly authorize the Trial Court judgment:
And, while we recognize that the appellant strongly feels that he is being unduly burdened financially, we are reminded that:
Therefore, in light of the shifting common-law and the legislative provisions, we rule that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in reaching its judgment on the petitions to modify the divorce decree, and the judgment is affirmed.
Arterburn and DeBruler, JJ., concur; Jackson, J., dissents with opinion in which Hunter, J., concurs.
JACKSON, J.
I am unable to concur in the majority opinion and dissent thereto.
To be brief and to the point it is my position that the question as to whether or not a father should be compelled to underwrite the college expenses of his children depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
Ordinarily support for a minor child ceases at age eighteen or at the time of emancipation, whichever first occurs.
It is, I think, quite reasonable to require a father who is financially able, either by reason of accumulated wealth, or by virtue of an adequate income, to assist his children in acquiring a college education. On the other hand I think it is an abuse of discretion, illegal and morally wrong to require a parent possessed of an extremely limited income to defray the college expenses of his children.
In the case at bar it appears appellant's take home pay is $75.00 per week, that since the divorce he has remarried, that in addition to the $40.00 per week support paid for the children appellant pays the life insurance premiums on the life insurance policies of the children in the sum of $5.21 per week. A simple mathematical computation of the financial *283 condition of the appellant herein reveals that after payment of weekly support and insurance payments he has the total sum of $29.79 left out of his $75.00 take home pay with which to support himself and the second wife and family.
In view of the financial circumstances delineated in the case at bar I am not impressed with the out of state cases cited in support of the majority opinion. The case of Haag v. Haag (1959), 240 Ind. 291, 163 N.E.2d 243 was decided subsequent to the out of state cases cited in the majority opinion and is the law in Indiana.
The rule in the Haag, supra, case might be modified in view of the 1965 amendment of the statute but certainly not under the circumstances delineated in the case at bar.
The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded with instructions to grant a new trial, or in the alternative to render judgment in favor of appellant to modify the decree.
Hunter, J., concurs.
NOTE.  Reported in 241 N.E.2d 50.