Opinion ID: 1832353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Out-of-State Tuition

Text: ¶ 25. This Court, in Wray v. Langston, 380 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Miss.1980), stated that [t]he duty of a parent to provide a college education for his or her child contemplates support in addition to tuition and college costs, without which, provision for college education would be in vain. (emphasis added). This statement gives little clarification, because what would render an education in vain for one child would not do so for another. For a student in one particular curriculum, a computer may be a necessity without which the student's education would be in vain. Yet for a student in another, expenses such as lab fees may be more vital than a computer. A professional aviation student could have fees not directly related to tuition but without which he and his career would be grounded. ¶ 26. There is no Mississippi law which gives direct guidance as to whether the out-of state tuition required for Katie Rose to attend Georgia Tech should or should not be an expense for which David is responsible. He points out that he and Kit received excellent educations in Mississippi, at a state-supported institution of higher learning, and that Katie Rose could do the same. In Clark v. Clark, 754 So.2d 450, 451 (Miss.1999) the chancellor ordered payment of tuition, books, housing, meals, and living expenses equivalent to the cost of attending a state-supported university in Mississippi. The issue in Clark, however, was not in-state vs. out-of-state tuition, but rather the in-state tuition was used for the sake of specificity and limitation. In Clark, the mother was financially unable to pay any expenses of college, as she worked as an executive housekeeper and her gross salary was only $1,080 per month. The father was better able to pay the children's college expenses and was ordered to do so. ¶ 27. Looking further for instruction on this issue, we turn again to the words of this Court in Wray: [w]e are of the opinion that a child, if the father is financially able, is entitled to attend college in accord with her family standards.  Wray, at 1262 (Emphasis added). Katie Rose's family has prioritized education as a family standard, nurtured her abilities, encouraged her academic achievement, and therein she has excelled. Both Kit and David have expressed to the court great pride in their daughter and her accomplishments. Katie Rose's interest in studying engineering led her to the decision to pursue a degree in this field at Georgia Tech. This school awarded her a four-year Presidential scholarship. The quality and quantity of necessities for which a parent is liable has been gauged in American and English Jurisprudence from time immemorial by the parents' station in life. A rich man, well able to pay, might very well be held liable for a college education of an extended and expensive sort.... Voluntary parental sacrifices to enable children to attend college are very common. The appellant's station in life however, is such that the obligation should not be placed upon him by law against his will. Golay v. Golay, 35 Wash.2d 122, 210 P.2d 1022, 1023 (1949) (quoting Esteb v. Esteb, 138 Wash. 174, 244 P. 264 (1926)). Unlike the father in Golay, David is a man of considerable means. Therefore, he is able and should be required to contribute to the college education at an institution of his daughter's choice, commensurate with her parents' station in life. It is not unreasonable to consider attendance at Georgia Tech to be within this family's station in life. We find no error in the chancellor's judgment regarding out-of-state tuition.