March 2012 Newsletter
Tuition Bill




College costs have risen drastically during the last decade, and the tuition at a significant number of private colleges and universities is some $40,000 or more per year for room and board.  At a time when so many people remain unemployed, and/or have lost their homes to foreclosure, the last thing on their minds is how to pay for college education.  This is especially true for divorced parents, who maintain two separate homes.  With one parent paying child support, and the other responsible for all the child(ren)'s food, clothing, and shelter expenses, there is little left to contribute.  The parent who pays the child support usually feels he/she is paying too much, and the recipient parent feels he/she receives too little.


Separation/Divorce Agreements usually have language regarding obligating each Party and/or allocating for such costs and expenses.  The specific language will likely vary, depending on the age of the children at the time of the divorce.  Since all issues related to children merge into the judgment of divorce, the issue of payment for college expenses is always modifiable.  Often the Agreement does not provide for any explanation regarding the cost and/or choice of school, although there may be provisions within the Agreement that entitles both parents to have the right to participate fully in their children's activities, and have input into educational decisions.  There may be language inserted requiring both parents be included in discussions, and decisions, regarding a child's college choice.  In the event that does not occur, the uninformed/uninvolved Party may not be required to participate, as long as his/her refusal/disagreement is not unreasonable.


In a 2009 the Appeals Court heard the case of Paula A. Mandel v. Shawn W. Mandel, 74 Mass.App.Ct.348(2009).  Some ten years after the divorce, the Parties' daughter enrolled in a private university costing approximately $34,000 per year.  The Parties were unable to agree on payment, Shawn refused to pay fifty percent of the cost, as he stated he was not consulted in the college selection process, and was denied access to loans.  Paula then filed a Complaint for Contempt.  The trial court judge found that Paula and the child selected a school "financially out of reach" for Shawn.  Paula appealed, claiming the judge erred in her decision.


The Appeals Court held that in determining whether college expenses are reasonable, courts have appropriately considered all relevant equitable factors, including the financial resources of both parents, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not been dissolved, the financial resources of the child, the cost of the school, programs offered at the school, child's scholastic aptitude, how the child meets the child's goals, and the benefits the child will receive from attending the school.  The Court also felt it was relevant to inquire as to "the extent to which a party unjustifiably may have been excluded from the college decision making process," stating "both parents have the right to participate in and provide input into the selection process."  The Court vacated the trial judge's order whereby she ordered him to pay $7,800 as opposed to $17,000, and remanded the case for a determination of what fifty percent of the daughter's reasonablecollege expenses are under the circumstances.


As a result of the Mandel case, many Probate & Family Court judges have adopted the position that each parent, and the child, be responsible for one-third of the cost of room, board, and tuition at that time at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.  This limits the financial obligation for each parent, and caps the parental obligation for college, for either a public or private institution of higher learning.  A student who wants to attend an expensive and/or prestigious college or university, is then on notice that in the absence of substantial scholarships, financial aid, and/or grants, attendance at that school may not be affordable and/or reasonable.





Social networking continues to be the source of significant information for friends, families, employers, and spouses.  While these networks are a wonderful way to communicate, they are often used to post unflattering pictures, and negative comments about former spouses and/or partners.  Since these pictures and comments may be downloaded and/or copied, they are frequently presented to various courts in support of one person's position.  However, recent cases confirm "there must be some 'confirming circumstances' sufficient for a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant authored the e-mails."  Commonwealth v. Purdy, 459 Mass. 442 (2011).  "Evidence that the defendant's name is written as the author of an e-mail or that the electronic communication originates from an e-mail or a social networking website such as Facebook or MySpace that bears the defendant's name is not sufficient alone to authenticate the electronic communication as having been authored or sent by the defendant."  See Commonwealth v. Williams, 456 Mass. 857, 868-869 (2010).  Be aware of these evidentiary issues when attempting to use emails, text messages, or social networking pages and sites.




Persons staying temporarily at hotels and similar lodgings have an expectation of privacy in exchange for payment of monies.  However, what happens when you haven't paid your bill for that hotel/motel/inn room?  In Commonwealth v. Molina, 459 Mass. 819 (2011), the Court determined that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in his hotel room where, before the detectives went to and entered the room, the hotel manager had taken affirmative steps to evict the defendant by a variety of means.  The manager had physically prevented the defendant's entry into the room by double-locking the door, as the hotel's policy permitted eviction without notice if the guest failed to comply with the hotel's rules and regulations, as well as local, State, and Federal laws.  The Court stated that once the door to the room was double-locked, the defendant's occupancy rights were properly terminated. 



Issue: 30

scales of justice

In This Issue
College Expenses
Recent Decisions of Interest
Join Our Mailing List
Need a Speaker?
Questions?  Comments?
Feel free to visit our website or email the office.

If anyone has a topic that would be of general interest, please do not hesitate to contact the office and let us know what items would be of general interest to the readers of this newsletter.
Susan C. Ryan, Esq.
Law Office of Susan Castleton Ryan, PC
(781) 982-8850

This newsletter is designed to keep you up-to-date with changes in the law.  For help with these or any other legal issues, please call our firm today.
The information in this newsletter is intended solely for your information .  It does not constitute legal advice, and it should not be relied on without a discussion of your specific situation with an attorney.