Opinion ID: 2036966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reimbursement of Lance by Mary Beth for Educational Expenses Paid.

Text: Another issue raised in the litigation is whether the court was correct in ordering Mary Beth to reimburse Lance for sums paid by him for Lucas's college expenses in excess of his one-third limit. The district court's ruling was based on a finding that Mary Beth had an obligation to contribute to Lucas's college expenses. Because that finding has been overturned, we could dispose of this issue based on the absence of any duty on her part. However, because of the likelihood that a similar issue might arise with respect to the parties' youngest child and for the benefit of the bench and bar, we express the view that the district court's ruling requiring reimbursement by Mary Beth was wrong even if she had an obligation to contribute toward Lucas's college expenses. Any obligation she would have had in that regard under section 598.21(5A) is owed to Lucas and is properly payable only to him or to the educational provider. [1] Lance, in paying more than his one-third, court-ordered subsidy, was a volunteer and is not entitled to reimbursement for the extra amount paid. In so holding, we do not intimate that a parent lacks standing to request a postsecondary education subsidy on behalf of a child. We have considered all issues presented. We affirm the postsecondary expense subsidy that was ordered for Lance and reverse the subsidy that was ordered for Mary Beth. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. McGIVERIN, S.J., [] participates in place of LARSON, J., who takes no part.