465 S.W.3d 745
Tex. App.2015Background
- Lori and William Bartlett signed an agreed final decree of divorce that (1) set periodic child support and (2) separately included an "Education Beyond High School" provision in the marital‑estate division requiring William to pay 100% of "reasonable education expenses" if the child was a full‑time student and "maintains at least a 'C' or equivalent GPA."
- The son began college in August 2012; Lori paid Fall 2012 expenses and sued William in Sept. 2012 when he refused reimbursement for that semester.
- At trial the son’s cumulative GPA dipped below a C after Spring 2013 but rose to at least a C after Summer 2013; the court admitted an exhibit itemizing payments and expenses.
- The trial court found William breached the college‑expense provision, found the provision was not child support under the Family Code, awarded Lori $15,190.50 plus fees, and entered findings and conclusions.
- William appealed, raising five issues: that the provision is void as child support; not enforceable as contract (Elfeldt/Bruni); barred by statute; excused by the son’s alleged first material breach (GPA); and that health‑insurance/uninsured medical expenses are child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bartlett) | Defendant's Argument (William) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is the college‑expense provision a child‑support obligation (void/enforceable)? | Lori: provision is a contractual post‑majority education expense, not child support. | William: provision is child support and thus not enforceable as a contract under Fam. Code §154.124(c). | Held: Not child support; provision is an independent contractual promise in division of marital estate; §154.124(c) inapplicable. |
| 2. Must Elfeldt/Bruni test apply (i.e., must the order expressly state enforceability as contract)? | Lori: Elfeldt/Bruni govern child‑support continuations; not applicable here. | William: decree fails Elfeldt/Bruni requirements so contract enforcement improper. | Held: Elfeldt/Bruni do not apply because provision is not child support. |
| 3. Does the current statute preclude enforcement by contract? | Lori: statute prohibits contractual enforcement only for child support; not for post‑majority education expense here. | William: current §154.124(c) bars contractual enforcement of support provisions. | Held: §154.124(c) inapplicable to this provision; trial court correctly enforced as contract. |
| 4. Was William excused by the son’s alleged first material breach (GPA lapse)? | Lori: son’s GPA ultimately met C standard; any lapse was not a material breach as to awarded expenses. | William: son’s drop below a C was a material breach that discharged William’s duty. | Held: William waived the affirmative‑defense argument by not pleading/obtaining findings; alternatively, record supports deemed finding any breach was not material for awarded pre‑breach expenses. |
| 5. Are health insurance and uninsured health care expenses child support (thus unenforceable as contract)? | Lori: these items are part of the contractual education expense package, not child support. | William: medical support is child support under Fam. Code §154.188(a)(2). | Held: Provision not child support; moreover Lori recovered no damages for these items, so no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Busbey v. Busbey, 619 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1981) (payment deferred until after majority is not child support for venue/characterization purposes)
- Bruni v. Bruni, 924 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1996) (predecessor statute/Elfeldt/Bruni test applies to orders that continue child support as contract terms)
- Elfeldt v. Elfeldt, 730 S.W.2d 657 (Tex. 1987) (order must expressly provide that its terms are enforceable as contract terms to satisfy predecessor statute)
- Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2004) (Restatement factors for material breach/condition analysis)
- Lindner v. Hill, 691 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. 1985) (omitted findings may be deemed to support judgment where evidence exists)
- PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 243 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. 2008) (analysis on conditions precedent and related contract principles)
- Community Bank & Trust v. Fleck, 107 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2002) (operation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 54 re: proof of conditions precedent)