In divorce, failure to pay share of college expenses, ruled willful and in contempt

Listen to this article

The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a family court order holding the defendant in willful contempt for failing to pay his share of the parties’ daughter’s college expenses, concluding that the divorce decree plainly required equal contributions and supported both reimbursement and an award of attorneys’ fees.

The dispute arose from a 2010 marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into the parties’ divorce decree. That agreement provided that both parties would contribute equally to the tuition and related expenses necessary for their children to pursue a college education. In 2023, the plaintiff filed a rule to show cause, alleging that the defendant had refused to pay 50% of the daughter’s college costs. The defendant argued that his nonpayment was not willful and contended the agreement was ambiguous and reflected no true meeting of the minds.

The court rejected those arguments and upheld the contempt finding. Applying de novo review, it held that the college-expense provision was clear and unambiguous. Because separation agreements are interpreted under ordinary contract principles, the court said plain language must be enforced as written. Here, the decree expressly required both parents to contribute equally to tuition and necessary college expenses, leaving no room for a different interpretation.

The court also agreed that the defendant’s failure to comply was willful. Because the obligation was plainly stated in the decree, the defendant could not avoid enforcement by later claiming confusion about its meaning. The court further noted that several additional defenses, including impossibility and unclean hands, were not preserved for appellate review because they had not been properly raised before the family court.

The court likewise affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff under a compensatory contempt theory. Because the plaintiff was forced to bring an enforcement action to secure compliance with an existing order, reimbursement of her litigation expenses was proper.

The 4 page opinion is Fennell v. Fennell, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-016-26.