"The Supreme Court also directed the plaintiff to contribute to the
college expenses of the parties' children. "The court may direct a
parent to contribute to a child's college education pursuant to Domestic
Relations Law § 240(1-b)(c)(7)" (Bogannam v Bogannam, 60 AD3d 985, 986; see Repetti v Repetti, 147 AD3d 1094, 1097).
"However, when college is several years away, and no evidence is
presented as to the child's academic interests, ability, possible choice
of college, or what his or her expenses might be, a directive
compelling [a parent] to pay for those expenses is premature and not
supported by the evidence" (Bogannam v Bogannam, 60 AD3d at 986; see Repetti v Repetti, 147 AD3d at 1097; Felix v Felix, 87 AD3d 1106, 1108).
At the time of trial, the parties' younger child was 14 years old, and
no evidence was presented concerning her academic ability, interest in
attending college, choice of college, or the expenses attendant with
college. Accordingly, it was premature for the court to direct the
plaintiff to contribute to the college expenses of the parties' younger
child (see Repetti v Repetti, 147 AD3d at 1097; Felix v Felix, 87 AD3d at 1108)."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.