The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

F and M divorced in 1993 following five years of marriage. M received custody of their two minor children, and F was required to pay child support in the amount of $212 per week, which was later reduced to $175 per week by agreement, in addition to thirty-five percent of his annual bonus. F earned approximately $29,000 per year plus a $2,500 bonus. However, his salary steadily increased to over $120,000 per year and his bonus to nearly $30,000 by 2007. In 2008, his salary was almost $250,000. M's income increased and fluctuated from less than $12,000 per year to a peak of approximately $40,000 per year. M never sought modification of F's child support obligation. Collin reached the age of majority and enrolled as a student at college. F wrote an e-mail in March 2006 agreeing to repay all of Collin's student loans upon graduation. He even co-signed a promissory note for Collin's student loans. F also agreed to pick up 'odd expenses from [Collin]'s education' and told Collin to call him whenever he 'needs a little help.' F also took it upon himself in that same letter to unilaterally decrease his weekly child support from $175 to $100. M later acquiesced in this reduction, apparently in consideration of F's assurances that he would support Collin while he was in college. F did not uphold his end of the bargain, nor did he regularly pay the percentage of his bonus as required. M sued seeking an award of college expenses, an increase in child support for Jamie, and attorney's fees and costs. A temporary order was filed in June 2007 that set child support for Jamie at $235 per week, ordered F to contribute $400 per month towards Collin's college expenses, and left intact the thirty-five percent of F's annual bonus payable as support. A final hearing was not done until 2009. In that period, Webb v. Sowell was decided which held that ordering a noncustodial parent to pay college expenses violates equal protection. Based on the “new holding,” the trial court dismissed M’s petition for college expenses and held that F had overpaid the past two years and reduced payments by 15% until the overpayment was covered. M appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.