Opinion ID: 1311474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: child support for college expenses

Text: At time of trial, one child was over 18 years of age and attending college. Testimony indicated that financial help was necessary to continue that child's college education, but the court's judgment did not provide for such support. One child was 16 years of age at time of trial and about to start college. Presumably, this child was provided for in the child support order (this child was to live at home while attending college so the expenses might reasonably be met by the order plus Janet's income). A third child was 15 years of age and still in high school. At contention are college expenses for the oldest child. Although plaintiff could have more precisely phrased this issue before the trial court, she did cite the appropriate statute, MCLA 552.17a; MSA 25.97(1), and the leading case at that time, Johnson v Johnson, 346 Mich 418; 78 NW2d 216 (1956). Therefore, the issue was raised. She argues that MCLA 552.17a, supra, [6] and GCR 1963, 729.2(1) [7] provide for child support for children beyond the age of 18 in exceptional circumstances. Because college education has been held to be an exceptional circumstance under some factual situations, plaintiff argues the court's support order should have provided such expenses for the child over 18. Johnson, supra . Defendant argues that the Age of Majority Act, in MCLA 722.52; MSA 25.244(52), [8] precludes any order of support after the age of 18. He relies on the Court of Appeals opinion in Price v Price, 51 Mich App 656; 215 NW2d 756 (1974), rev'd, 395 Mich 6; 232 NW2d 630 (1975), wherein it was held that MCLA 552.17a, supra, and case law [9] only allow support up to the age of majority (18). However, the Court of Appeals opinion in Price was reversed by this Court and the case provides controlling precedent here. The saving provision of the Age of Majority Act applies to this case, so we need go no further.  This act does not impair or affect any act done, offense committed or right accruing, accrued or acquired, or a liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred before this act takes effect, but the same may be enjoyed, asserted and enforced, as fully and to the same extent as if this act had not been passed. Such proceedings may be consummated under and in accordance with the law in force at the time the proceedings are or were commenced. Proceedings pending at the effective date of this act and proceedings instituted thereafter for any act, offense committed, right accruing, accrued or acquired, or liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred before the effective date of this act may be continued or instituted under and in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the act, offense committed, right accruing, accrued or acquired, or liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred. MCLA 722.54; MSA 25.244(54). (Emphasis added.) In Price, the original petition for increased support for college expenses was filed on July 20, 1971 (the divorce occurred in 1967). The petition was held to be a proceeding pending at the effective date of this act [January 1, 1972]   . Therefore, the proceeding fell within the saving provision of the Age of Majority Act quoted above. In the instant case, the complaint for divorce was filed October 1, 1971, and the judgment of divorce entered August 22, 1973. Therefore, the divorce proceeding was pending at the effective date of this act. The saving provision of the Age of Majority Act applies. Because the saving provision applies, child support in the court's judgment should be awarded under law in existence prior to the Age of Majority Act. The judgment did not provide support for the oldest child, nor did the court indicate why no support was ordered. Therefore, this case must be remanded to the trial court for consideration of whether support should be ordered for college education of the oldest child under MCLA 552.17a, supra, and case law. [10]