The March 18, 2026, Court of Appeals opinion in Fennell v. Fennell, affirmed a family court order finding Father in contempt for not paying one-half of daughter’s college tuition and expenses and requiring him to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees.
As part of the parties’ divorce and marital settlement agreement, “[b]oth parties agree[d] to contribute equally to the tuition and other expenses necessary for the Children to pursue a college education.” When Father refused to pay an equal share of daughter’s tuition and necessary related expenses, Mother filed a rule to show cause. Father answered by claiming his failure to pay was not willful, deliberate, or in violation of the Divorce Decree.” From the opinion it appears his primary defense was that the agreement was ambiguous.[1]
The family court found the agreement was not ambiguous, found Father in contempt, ordered him to make contributions towards daughter’s college expenses, and ordered him to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees to enforce compliance. Father appealed.
Both parties were pro se in the appeal and the Court of Appeals opinion is largely a series of string citations with little analysis of the factual claims at issue. One cannot tell from the opinion what Father alleged was ambiguous in his agreement. One assumes it was the word “necessary.” If necessary qualified college expenses overall, I would be inclined to agree with him—is it necessary that he pay college expenses if his daughter qualifies for loans or grants? But necessary only qualified “other expenses…to pursue a college education.” While there could be ambiguity in what such expense are necessary (transportation?; sorority dues?), one assumes that provision is not ambiguous as to books, room and board, and school fees.
One reason I discourage clients from agreeing to commit to paying a portion of college expenses in their marital dissolution or child custody/support agreements is that it is often unclear how big a commitment one is making when one makes this commitment if the bill for college won’t become due for years. I see a lot of ambiguity in these college contribution agreements,[2] but Fennell does not appear to present such a situation.
[1] Father also alleged impossibility and unclean hands, but the Court of Appeals found these arguments were not raised and ruled upon by the lower court, and therefore were not preserved for review.
[2] Don’t get me started on college support agreements that require each party to pay a pro rata share.
Your comment in note #2 drew a LOL from me.