The Nevada Court of Appeals has reversed a family court judge’s decision to modify the parties’ marital settlement agreement that provided that a dad would pay for the children’s future college expenses.
In this case, a local family court judge determined that because the specific amount dad would have to pay was not set forth in the marital settlement agreement, the agreement was ambiguous and a reasonableness standard must be applied. The family court judge then decided that the cost of in-state tuition for UNLV was a reasonable cap to dad’s obligation.
Pecos Law Group appealed the family court decision, arguing in part that the provision was not ambiguous and that the judge’s decision to limit the college expenses to UNLV in-state tuition was arbitrary modification of the agreement and an abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals agreed, explaining that family court judges do not have the authority to modify an unmerged marital settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals then analyzed the college expenses provision as a contract provision and determined that the language, while it lacked a specific amount for the expenses, was not ambiguous.
The case has now been sent back to the family court for further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals order. Based on the determination that the agreement is not ambiguous, it is presumed that the district court will interpret the provision to require dad to pay the entirety of the college expenses, provided the other requirements of the provision are met.