WPC pO\(R}DD=q{t$CeqIf/8BqK-Sοc6 ȏ?P|Ic@|.M!|< -* p`'UF/V6aQ(V@1 uYudYbHyx2Qi<IRs7Jx "zd|Wڞ4 2VK'y`Ix1dz=q񃀃%ÛFwd"qsȇ.MEXymm/h1衑kTeD*PdY+Vi{]PċPP0kY=pQAүT6W1LS2ғvDz+d:: J՝^ <8iU` Q1ZY< }=П>"D6Mn _(.]# U N! %o 0(uw@4 N f ^ p | m~ Z 0  0DQ UN  U: AQo 0D5 0Dy 0D D/ B0 D3MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EUD T!T"Ӏ,F&3|x, \\RA' Legal\!& U SUTOSKIHENNIGANTYRUSSTATUMHenniganSutoskiMeghanGareyPenlandClemmerT.C.A.DugganBohlenWildridgeBoutinDorusCagleDorris(`(2ǟ$ !         0    ǟ$   @ @   1    _KXXԀBecausethe1994agreedorderreferencestheobligationssetforthinthe  1984settlementagreementandorder,Fatherarguesthe1994orderisalsounenforceablesinceitisaclarificationofthe childsupport.(#$  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular ""  Xh XXX  XXh   Ad FILEDXh X    May26,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd\\\\'dxd d !  _XX †   TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T_  ""  ,"r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r",,, @   IN_ԀTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  _!!,,!!,,!@{{(!AT_ԀNASHVILLE,t )>.*jxA` `@E` 8ttxP A t,_w_  MARYSHEILASUTOSKI 8   )  X HENNIGAN,     8   )  n  Plaintiff/Appellee, 8   )  AppealNo. 4    0      8   )  01A019807CH00380 J  vs.  0      8   )   `    0      8   )  BedfordChancery v  ALVINHENNIGAN,JR., 8   )  No.12628    Defendant/Appellant 8   )      APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURT 4 FORBEDFORDCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLETYRUSCOBB,CHANCELLOR  <   ROBERTTODDJACKSON222SecondAvenueNorthSuite419Nashville,TN37201ATTORNEYFORTHEDEFENDANT/APPELLANTFREDC.STATUM,JR.2200FirstUnionTower150FourthAvenueNorthNashville,TN37219ATTORNEYFORTHEPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE *&#    AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  0      8   PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE x4/, CONCUR:CANTRELL,J.KOCH,J.  9651   :L62 " †\RA' Legal\  "  ""#XXG#߅XX7$ dXXd7OPINION #XX߅ #   XX _Appellant,_ԀAlvin_Hennigan,_Ԁ(hereinafterreferredtoasFather)appealsthe X trialcourtsorderrequiringhimtopayhisdaughterscollegeexpensespursuanttothePropertySettlementandChildCustodyAgreemententeredintowith_Appellee,_ԀMarySheilaSutoski_Hennigan,_Ԁ(hereinafterreferredtoasMother)atthetimeoftheirdivorceandalateramendment.Forthereasonsstatedhereinafter,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. ThepartiesweredivorcedonFebruary24,1984.Atthetimeoftheirdivorcetheyhadthreeminor_children,_Ԁages5,9and12.Thedivorcewasbasedonirreconcilabledifferences.ThepartiesenteredintoaPropertySettlementandChildCustodyAgreementwhichwasapprovedbythecourtandincorporatedintotheFinalDecreegrantingdivorce.Theagreementcontainedaprovisionregardingthe_childrens_Ԁcollegeeducationwhichstated: ___8 80 ! !The_Ԁhusbandfurtheragreesthathewillpayforreasonableeducationalexpenses,aschildsupportforthechildrenoftheparties,incurredbysaidchildrenthroughtheobtainingofanundergraduatedegreebyeachofsaidchildren,oruponeachofsaidchildrenreachingtwentytwoyearsofage,whicheveroccurssooner. 0 0    0 ___8 80 ! !Wife_Ԁagreestoaidhusbandinthepaymentofthecollegeeducationalexpensesofthepartieschildrencommensuratewithherfinancialconditionatthetime. 0 0   In_1994,_Ԁthepartieswereagainincourttoclarifytheirrespectivefinancialdutiesregardingsupportfortheirchildren,includingtheir_childrens_Ԁcollegeeducations.OnDecember7,_1994_Ԁthepartiesenteredintoanagreedorderwhichcontainedthefollowingprovision:Q___8 80 ! !Respondent_Ԁhaspreviouslyagreedtoand_embodied_Ԁby 8L40  †\RA' Legal\  CourtOrdershallcontinuetoberesponsibleforthereasonablecollegeexpensesofthepartieschildren, 4942  †  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    ChristopherMatthewHenniganand_Meghann_  Hennigan,assetforthinthepriorCourtOrder.Specificallyrespondentshallcontinuetoprovideroom,boardandtuitionandPetitionerbyvirtueofpriorcourtorderrequiringhertoassistfinanciallybaseduponherincomeshallprovideandpayforallothernecessaryexpensesrelatedtocollegeeducationofthepartieschildren. 0 0   Thepartiesyoungestdaughter,_Meghann,_Ԁwasanexceptionalstudentinhighschool,graduatedwithhighhonorsfromaprivateschoolinNewYorkin1996,andappliedtoanumberofprestigiousuniversities.ShewasacceptedtotheUniversityofNotreDameinSouthBend,Indiana,andbeganschoolthereinthefallof1996.Fatherpaidonlyaportionoftheroom,_board,_Ԁandtuitionfortheyears19961997and19971998.Itisundisputedthatthetotalcostofroom,_board,_ԀandtuitionatNotre_Dame,_Ԁatthe_time,_Ԁwasinexcessof$16,000persemester.ItisalsoundisputedthatFathersincomeduringthetimeperiodinquestionrangedfrom$343,690_to_Ԁ$583,793. Mothersuedtoenforcethetermsofthe1994agreedorder.___Father_Ԁarguedthatheshouldnothavetopaythefullamountofroom,board,andtuitionforhisdaughterseducationatNotreDame.Heinsistedthatacourtordertopayforanadultchildshighereducationisunenforceable,evenwheretheorderisbaseduponanagreementbetweentheparties.Inthealternative,hearguedthattheuseofthewords reasonablecollegeexpenseswassoambiguousastorendertheorderandtheunderlyingagreementunenforceable.ThetrialcourtruledinfavorofMotherandorderedthedefendanttopaythedifferencebetweenwhathehadalreadycontributedandthefullamountofhisdaughtersroom,_board,_Ԁandtuitionfortheyears199697and199798,whichwascalculatedtobe$18,227.Further,thetrialcourtorderedthatFatherpayforhisdaughterstworemainingyearsatNotreDame._This_ԀappealbyFatherfollowed.Weaffirmtherulingof 7L31 thetrialcourt.__@-I. Fatherarguesthattheagreementthathepayforhischildscollegeeducationisunenforceablebecausehehasnolegaldutytosupportachildwhoisover18yearsofageandhasgraduatedfromhighschool.Itisgenerallytruethataparentcannotbeorderedbythecourtstopaychildsupportforanadultchild.Blackburnv.Blackburn,526S.W.2d463(Tenn.1975);Gareyv.Garey, @  482S.W.2d133(Tenn.1972);Jonesv.Jones,503S.W.2d924(Tenn.App. X 1973). However,apartytoadivorcemaybyagreementobligatehimselforherselfbeyondthesupportdutiesimposedbylaw.Suchprovisionsinanagreementareenforceableascontractualobligationseventhoughtheagreementisincorporatedintoadivorcedecree.PenlandvPenland,521S.W.2d222   (Tenn.1975);Blackburnv.Blackburn,526S.W.2d463,465(Tenn.1975). 8 Partiestoadivorceproceeding shouldbeabletoobligatethemselvesbyagreementbeyondwhatthecourtscouldorderthemtodoasamatteroflaw. Holtv.Holt,751S.W.2d426,428(Ten.App.1988).Anyvoluntarilyassumed 0&!  obligationexceedingtheminimumchildsupportrequiredbystatuteisbased_on_thepartiescontract,enforceableasacontractualobligation,andcontrolledexclusivelybytheagreement.Haasv.Haas,No.02A019604CV_Ԅ00073,_ x,'& _1997_ԀWL194852*3,(Tenn.App._April22,_Ԁ1997)_(NoTenn.R.App.R.11applicationfiled)._ ThecourtsinTennesseehaveconsistentlyheldthataparentsagreementtoprovide___for_Ԁcollegeeducation_expensesbeyond_Ԁthe_age_Ԁof_achilds_Ԁmajorityisenforceableasacontractualobligationandisa validcontractualareaforhusbandandwifeinthethroesofdivorce.Penlandv.Penland,521S.W.2d 9X42 _222,224_Ԁ(Tenn.1975).Anagreementwhichimposesuponapartyadutytopayfutureeducationalexpensesofchildrenbeyondhighschoollevel,andwhichnecessarilyenvisionsanobligationbeyondtheageofmajority,constitutes"acontractualobligationoutsidethescopeofthelegaldutyofsupportduringminorityandretainsitscontractualnature,althoughincorporatedinafinaldecreeofdivorce."Id.at224-25.SeealsoDugganv.Bohlen,No.01_ԄA_01 (x  9611CV_Ԅ00535,_Ԁ_1997_ԀWL379177*2_(Tenn._ԀApp.July9,1997)_(NoTenn.R.App.R.11applicationfiled)._ Fatherarguesthatthewordingofthe1984agreementwhichcharacterizesthecollegeeducationexpensesas childsupportrenderstheagreementsunenforceable. %  1      ׀Thisargumentiswithoutanybasis.First,thetwoagreements  clearlyembodyFatherspromisetopayforhis_childrens_Ԁcollegeeducation.Second,eveniftheagreementsobligatedFathertopaypost_Ԅ__majority_Ԁsupport,notcollegeexpenses,theywouldbeenforceable.Apartymayagreetoprovidechildsupportbeyondthatrequired_bylaw_Ԁandmodifiablebythecourt,andsuchagreementisenforceablebythecourtasanyothercontract.Penland,521 $h S.W.2d222_(Tenn._Ԁ_1975);_ԀBoutinv.Boutin,No.01_ԄA_01_Ԅ9601__CH__Ԅ00014,_Ԁ_1996_ 0&!  WL_694122_Ԁ(Tenn.App._____Dec.5,1996)_Ԁ_Ԁ(NoTenn.R.App.R.11applicationfiled);_ԀDorrisv._Dorris,_ԀNo.01_ԄA01______9304CV00170,_Ԁ_199______________3WL380778(Tenn. `*%$ App.Sept.29,1993)____Ԁ(NoTenn.R.App.R.11applicationfiled).______ Therefore,wefindthatMr.HennigansagreementtopayforMeghannsroom,board,andtuitionisenforceableasacontractualmatter.   0+*   2., @-II._Ԉ Next,Fatherattemptstoavoidtheeffectofhispriorcommitmentbasedontheuseintheagreementsofthephrase reasonablecollegeexpenses.Hesubmitsthattheterm reasonablecollegeexpensesissufficientlyvagueandambiguoustovoidthepartiesagreementsforwantofmutualityandfailureofa_meeting_Ԁofthe_minds.___ Thetrialcourt'sinterpretationoftheprovisionoftheagreements,beingcontractualinnature,isnotentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectnessunderTenn.R.App.P.13(d)sincecontractinterpretationinvolveslegalratherthanfactualinquiry.HillsboroPlazaEnterprisesv.Moon,860S.W.2d45,47(Tenn.App.  1993).__ԀOurtaskistoreviewthecontractsanewandmakeourownindependentdeterminationoftheagreementsmeaning.Id.at47.However,thisCourtisnot  atlibertytomakeanewcontractforpartieswhohavespokenforthemselvesnorareweatlibertytorelievepartiesfromtheircontractualobligationssimplybecausetheseobligationslaterprovetobeburdensomeorunwise.Id. "P  Fathersargumentthattheword reasonableis_vague_Ԁandrendersanagreementvoidmilitatesagainst___wellsettled_Ԁprinciplesofcontractlaw,andappellanthasfailedtoprovideanyauthoritytothiscourtinsupportofhisposition.Itcannotbesaidthattheuseoftheterm reasonablecreatesanambiguitywhichmakesanagreementunenforceable.Infact,underTennesseelawcontractsaresubjecttoanimpliedconditionofreasonableness,evenwheretheterm_ reasonable_Ԁisnotusedinthecontract.Moorev.Moore,603S.W.2d 0+* 736,739(Tenn.App.1980);Hurleyv.Tenn.FarmersMut.Ins.Co.,922S.W.2d 2., 887(Tenn.App.1995).Infact,inCaglev.Cagle,No.02A019710CH_Ԅ 4(0. 00265,_Ԁ_1998_ԀWL80219*3(Tenn.App.Nov.18,_1998),__Ԁ(NoTenn.R.App.R.11applicationfiled)__,_Ԁthiscourtagreedwiththefatherthathisagreementtopayhis 9X42 sonscollegeexpenseswassubjecttotheimpliedconditionofreasonableness. IthasbeenheldinTennesseethat acontractisambiguousonlywhenitisofuncertainmeaningandmayfairlybeunderstoodinmorewaysthanone.Astrainedconstructionmaynotbeplacedonthelanguageusedtofindambiguitywherenoneexists.FarmersPeoplesBankv.Clemmer,519S.W.2d  ` _801,805_Ԁ_(Tenn._Ԁ_1975);_ԀEmpressHealthandBeautySpa,Inc.v._Turner,_Ԁ503 (x  S.W.2d188_(Tenn._Ԁ1973). Inmakinghis ambiguityargument,Fatheroverlooksthe1994agreedorderwhereinthepartiesmorespecificallydefinedtheirrespectiveobligations.Heagreedtopayroom,board,andtuitionasthe reasonablecollegeexpensesofChristopherand_Meghann._ԀFurther,theclearandspecificlanguageofthe1994orderrefutesFatherscontentionthatMothershouldberequiredtopaysomeportionof_Meghanns_Ԁroom,board,andtuitionaspartofheragreementtoaidFatherinthepaymentofcollegeexpenses.Mothersobligation,aswellasFathers,issetoutinthe1994orderwithreferencetospecificitemstobepaidbyeach.FathercomplainsthatheshouldhavebeenallowedtoconductdiscoveryregardingMothersfinancialsituation.WeagreewiththetrialcourtthatMothersfinanceswereirrelevanttotheissueinthislawsuit:whetherFatherhadfulfilledhis_obligations.__ __Therefore,wefurtherfindthattheagreementshereinarenotambiguousandthatMr.HenniganscommitmenttopayMeghannsroom,board,andtuitionisenforceable.__  2., _@XX,III. Onappeal,Fathersonlycomplaintaboutthereasonablenessof_the_Ԁ_room,_Ԁ___board,andtuition_ԀexpensesatNotreDameappearstobehisopinionthatthetwothirdshehaspaidisreasonableandthatMothershouldberequiredtopaytheremainder.UnfortunatelyforMr.Hennigan,thatisnottheagreementhemade.Hadheintendedtolimitthetotalamountofhisobligationortoobligatehimselfonlyforapercentageofthetotalcost,Fathercouldhavedonesointheagreementshesigned.SeeCaglev.Cagle,1998Tenn.App.WL80219*3( If X fatherhadwantedtoberesponsibleforhissonscollegeexpensesonlyuponthesonattendingapublicuniversity,theMDAprovisioncouldhavebeendraftedtoincludesuchlimiting_language.)_ԀInstead,helimitedhisobligationbycommittinghimselftopayonlyroom,board,andtuition._ԀAnyotherexpernnsesaretobepaidbyMother._̀ Therewasevidencepresentedattrialwhichisrelevanttoaconsideration 8 ofreasonableness.Fathersadjustedgrossincomefor1994was$483,730;for1995itwas$583,793;for1996itwas$343,690.Fatheralsotestifiedtoother_valuableassets_Ԁheowns.WhileFathertestifiedthathiscurrentmonthlyexpensesexceedhismonthlyincome,thetrialcourtwasnotpersuadedthatthecollegeexpensesofhisdaughter_were_Ԁunreasonableinlightofhisabilitytopay.Neitherarewe. FatherwasawarethathisdaughterwasconsideringcollegesasexpensiveormoreexpensivethanNotreDame.Almosteightmonthsbeforethe___December1994_Ԁagreedorderwasentered,FatherreceivedaletterdatedApril25,1994,fromMotheraboutcollegeexpensesforChrisand_Meghann._ԀInrelevantpart,thatletterprovided:_ 9X42 _8 80 ! !AndcertainlyIwillnotallow_Meghann,_Ԁwhowillbegraduatingatthetoporclosetothetopofherclass,tobeconcernedaboutwhetherornotyouwillbepayingforhereducation.Ifyouarelimitingherchoiceof $ schoolsbasedontuition,thisisthetimetotalktohersoshewontplanonattendingatopschool.Shes  < alreadyreceivinginformationfromcollegesbecausesheissuchanexcellentstudent.Imsureshehasmentionedsomepossiblechoices.IknowthatIhaveinthepastmentionedschoolslikeVanderbilt, l  Georgetown,andDuketoyou.(Emphasisadded.)(x 0 0   Fatherwasawarethat_Meghann_Ԁwasvisitingsomeprestigiousuniversitiesinanticipationofherapplicationandenrollment,includingDukeandGeorgetown.Fatherhimselftook_Meghann_ԀtovisitVanderbiltUniversityinMayof1996.Vanderbiltstuition,roomandboardareslightlymoreexpensivethanNotreDames.By___May1996,_ԀFatherknew_Meghann_ԀhadbeenadmittedtoNotreDame.Atnotime,untilAugustof1996(shortlybefore_Meghann_Ԁwastoleaveforcollege)didFathertellhisdaughterhedidnotintendtopayforherfullroom,_board,_ԀandtuitionatNotreDame. Thetrialcourtfoundthat thecostof_Meghann_ԀHennigansNotreDameUniversityroom,board,andtuitionarereasonableexpensesascontemplatedbytheearlieragreementsandorders.Thisfindingisentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectness,andtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstit.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthattheroom,board,andtuitionexpensesarereasonable.@RR-___IV._Ԉ_ Basedontheforegoing,theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.ThecostsaretaxedtotheAppellant.Thecaseisherebyremandedtothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsthatmaybenecessary. - K  4(0.   0   0  08T$T$  _    _______________________________ 8T$8T$   0      8   PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE#K -X# #  H CONCUR:________________________________0  BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDING  T$ T$ ЀJUDGE,MIDDLESECTION                  ________________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE