Supreme Court of Alabama
145 So. 3d 60 (2013)
Carolyn and Phillip Christopher were divorced. Phillip filed a petition in the trial court seeking to compel Carolyn, the noncustodial parent, to pay a portion of their son’s college expenses. At the time of divorce, the son was a minor. The son turned 19, the age of majority in Alabama, four days after Phillip filed the petition. The Alabama child-custody statute referred to custody and education of “children of the marriage.” However, the statute did not define “children,” nor did it specify when a child becomes ineligible due to age for parental support after divorce. The trial court granted Phillip’s petition and ordered Carolyn to pay 25 percent of the son’s college expenses. Carolyn appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, C.J.)
Dissent (Shaw, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.