Opinion ID: 1832353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Sorority

Text: ¶ 30. David's brief states that Apparently, Kit contends that Katie's college education would be in vain if not conducted out of state and without being able to drive her own luxury automobile to sorority soirees. While this may or may not be what Kit is contending, it is not the issue before this Court. The issue here is the same as was characterized by the chancellor, that is whether David, notwithstanding Katie Rose's own assets, is legally obligated for one-half of her college education expenses, including out-of-state tuition, car insurance and sorority. David believes that it would be against public policy for the Court to uphold the judgment that he pay half of his daughter's sorority expenses. We must decide if legally requiring a parent to pay this expense would be to mandate the extravagant. ¶ 31. Addressing this final sub-issue of sorority, neither party cites case law on point from any jurisdiction. While there is scant case law defining college education expenses, there is even less guidance regarding whether an education must include sorority participation, and if so, at whose expense. It was clearly stated in Golay that where the father was not a rich man and could barely afford his own living expenses, he was not liable for sorority expenses of his daughter. Golay, at 1023. In the present case, both parents are very wealthy and sorority expenses should not have any significant negative impact on their net worth. Florida jurisprudence provides guidance concerning the fashioning of support where parents have the good fortune of wealth: The child of a multimillionaire would be entitled to share in that standard of living-for example to attend private school or to participate in expensive extracurricular activities and would accordingly be entitled to a greater award of child support to provide for these items, even though such items would not be ordered in a different case. Finley v. Scott, 687 So.2d 338, quoting Miller v. Schou, 616 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla. 1993) (emphasis added & footnote omitted). ¶ 32. It was not abuse of discretion for the chancellor to determine that David should pay one-half of the cost of sorority membership for Katie Rose. Certainly it appears that involvement in such an expensive extracurricular college activity would be in keeping with Katie Rose's family's life-style. David has not proven that it would be a hardship for him to contribute to Katie Rose's college sorority expenses. Because no Mississippi case law indicates that to do so is error, we find that it was not error for the chancellor to order David to pay for half of Katie Rose's sorority expenses.