Opinion ID: 1832353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Car Insurance

Text: ¶ 28. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for the court to require David to pay for one-half of the car insurance, as Kit promised to furnish the car for their daughter as a graduation gift. The court properly found that David failed to prove that such expense would create a hardship. Whether Kit chooses to provide Katie Rose with a Lexus or a Beetle, half of the insurance obligation for either car would not appear to be out of line with what a person of David's means could afford. Whether David would agree with the continuance of the family standards is not a consideration before this Court. Whether he was in agreement to the family's standard of living during the marriage is also not an issue before this Court. The fact remains that these are the family standards which did exist throughout Katie Rose's youth, and those to which she is accustomed. ¶ 29. All too often what parents would have done willingly had their relationship not deteriorated must, after the fact, be coerced for the benefit of their children. Chesonis, 538 A.2d at 1379 (Cirillo, P.J. concurring). Emotionalism and bitterness displace reason, and it is indeed noble for us to step between warring parents to rescue their children's dreams. Id. Here, requiring David to pay for half of the car insurance does not mandate the extravagant. Nor would it open the flood gates whereby courts would have to satisfy the every whim of ex-wives, as David alludes. Here, the Court accepts these facts: This child will have a car. The car will be in keeping with the family standards. Where there is a car, there is a need for car insurance. Here the parents are able, and no more need be said. Sutliff at 1326. For the foregoing reasons, and because the chancellor's decision is not inconsistent with the jurisprudence found in Wray, we hold that the chancellor's decision requiring David to pay for one-half of the car insurance did not exceed his authority.