Educational Expenses

IMDMA §513(a)(2) defines the type of educational expenses covered:

The educational expenses may include, but shall not be limited to, room, board, dues, tuition, transportation, books, fees, registration and application costs, medical expenses including the school year and periods of recess.

Even before the statute was amended to specify the types of expenses that were covered, the courts had ruled that, in addition to tuition and books, the section ocvers living expenses for a child residing at home while attending college. In re Marriage of Pauley, 103 Ill.App.3d 100, 432 N.E.2d 661, 59 Ill.Dec. 875 (4th Dist. 1982); In re Marriage of Bentivenga, 109 Ill.App.3d 967, 441 N.E.2d 336, 65 Ill.Dec. 423 (2d Dist. 1982)(case remanded for hearing to determine living expenses of child living at home while attending college). Although no reported opinion could be found addressing this issue, trial courts have used the child support guidelines of IMDMA §505 as a reasonable approximation of living expenses and support for a child living at home while attending college in the absence of a contrary agreement by the parties.

The obligation to pay for these expenses and any others that may be deemed pertinent rests on both parents, who may either allocate such expenses between themselves in their marital settlement agreement at the time of the divorce or defer the allocation until the children actually attend college. In the latter case, they can, by agreement, either provide that §513 will be applied as appropriate or set out specific standards and factors that will rule their private agreement. Cf. In re Marriage of Albiani, 159 Ill.App.3d 519, 512 N.E.2d 30, 111 Ill.Dec. 126 (1st Dist. 1987)(appellate court upheld trial court’s reserving jurisdiction to settle issue in future if parties could not agree, rather than adjudicating college expense issue at time of divorce when child was still a minor).

Courts continue to struggle with the issue of college educational expenses and their proper allocation. The line is being held on the fact that the nature of the child’s relationship to the parent is not relevant in determining to what extent the parent should contribute to educational expenses. In re Marriage of Drysch, 314 Ill.App.3d 640, 732 N.E.2d 125, 247 Ill.Dec. 409 (2d Dist. 2000), sets forth a clear recognition of the common parent child estrangement resulting from divorce and the fact that such relationship issues do not eliminate the bond and responsibilities of parenthood.

That same case moved the law further along in its evolution toward “consideration of a new spouse’s income, particularly under the plain language of IMDMA §513(b)(1). A distinguishing factor may be that the parties here admittedly “commingled” and pooled their money. In a 1999 case involving only §505, a court confirmed that, at least in that context, the financial status of the non-custodial parent’s current spouse may not be considered in determining the ability of that party to fulfill its obligation of child support. In re Marriage of Boland, 308 Ill.App.3d 1063, 721 N.E.2d 815, 242 Ill.Dec. 536 (4th Dist. 1999).

Other cases, however, even under the same statutory considerations have allowed the “equitable consideration” of whether the payment of child support would endanger the ability of a support-paying party and current spouse to meet their own needs. See e.g., In re Marriage of Keown, 225 Ill.App.3d 808, 587 N.E.2d 644, 167 Ill.Dec. 375 (4th Dist. 1992).

A wife properly ordered to reimburse her husband for a portion of a child’s education expenses incurred prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. In re Marriage of Bennett, 306 Ill.App.3d 246, 713 N.E.2d 1278, 239 Ill.Dec. 428 (2d Dist. 1999). The court reasoned that the wife could have been liable for all or any portion of the child’s expenses in any event pursuant to 750 ILCS 65/15(a)(1).

Back to Index

See Also: