If Private School Expenses are Included, You Must Say so in the PSA
May 22, 2014 § 3 Comments
Andrea Gaienne and Michael McMillin were divorced from each other in 2007, on the sole ground of irreconcilable differences. They shared joint legal custody, and Michael got “primary physical custody” of the two children, who were then ages 7 and 3. The parties’ PSA included the following language:
3. Child Support and School Expenses. Wife will not be required to pay child support to Husband, as Husband acknowledges and represents unto the Court that he has sufficient income in excess of that set out in the Mississippi Child Support Guidelines to fully support the minor children in his custody without contributions of child support from the Wife. However, Husband and Wife agree that each will pay one-half of any and all daycare expenses, and any other expenses relating to daycare or school, including school supplies, and sports activities for the minor children, including the costs of any uniforms, fees, and travel expenses for sports activities.
. . .
12. College Education and Expenses. Husband will continue payments to the Mississippi Impact for the minor children for their college tuition and Wife agrees to contribute and pay $500.00 per year to the Mississippi Impact fund for the minor childrens’ college tuition beginning in 2007. Husband and Wife further agree that whatever college expenses are not covered by the Mississippi Impact fund, that as such college expenses that are not covered become due, Husband and Wife will discuss and confer with one another as to which are reasonable for college for the minor children, they and will [sic] decide, if possible, the amount that each will pay toward said college expenses, and if they cannot agree, then Husband and Wife agree that the Chancery Court of Warren County will make such decisions regard[ing] the college expenses for the minor children. That this agreement will extend throughout the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. This obligation may extend past the twenty-first birthday of either child, but it shall not extend past the twenty-third birthday of either child. Total expenses for which the Husband and Wife may be responsible and may agree on include the following: tuition, room and board, books, student fees, transportation expenses, fraternity or sorority dues, fees or expenses, and a reasonable amount of discretionary spending money. Husband and Wife further agree to consult with one another and with each minor child as to the choice of the appropriate college or university. The college or university shall be selected by the parties and the child, the majority rule.
The seven-year-old was enrolled in public school at the time of the divorce, but, after a bullying incident the parties enrolled him in a private school, sharing the tuition. Andrea thought she and Michael had an agreement that she would be relieved of the Impact payments in consideration of sharing the private school tuition, but when Michael would not acknowledge that in writing, she filed pleadings in chancery court seeking modification or clarification that she was not required by the language of the PSA to contribute to pre-college private school tuition. Michael countered with a contempt action.
The chancellor found that the agreement did require Andrea to contribute to the private school tuition, and found her in contempt. Andrea appealed.
In a ruling handed down May 15, 2014, the MSSC in Gaienne v. McMillin, addressed the issue. Justice Randolph wrote for the majority:
I. Gaiennie is not obligated to pay for private-school tuition.
¶8. “While a chancellor’s decisions in a [domestic] action are reviewed for manifest error, a property settlement agreement is a contract, and contract interpretation is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.” McFarland v. McFarland, 105 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Miss. 2013) (citing Harris v. Harris, 988 So. 2d 376, 378 (Miss. 2008)). This Court applies a three-tiered approach to contract interpretation. Facilities, Inc. v. Rogers-Usry Chevrolet, Inc., 908 So.2d 107, 111 (Miss. 2005). First, we apply the “four corners” test, wherein this Court “looks to the language that the parties used in expressing their agreement.” Id. “When construing a contract, we will read the contract as a whole, so as to give effect to all of its clauses.” Id. “On the other hand, if the contract is unclear or ambiguous, the court should attempt to ‘harmonize the provisions in accord with the parties’ apparent intent.” Id. (quoting Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 349, 352 (Miss. 1990)). “The mere fact that the parties disagree about the meaning of a provision of a contract does not make the contract ambiguous as a matter of law.” Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So. 2d 416, 419 (Miss. 1987). Secondly, if the contract is unclear or ambiguous, this Court applies the “discretionary ‘canons’ of contract construction.” Facilities, 908 So. 2d at 111. Thirdly, “if the contract continues to evade clarity as to the parties’ intent, the court should consider extrinsic or parol evidence.” Id.
¶9. Gaiennie argues that, under the terms of the property-settlement agreement, she is not obligated to pay one-half of private-school expenses. Gaiennie points to the absence of the word “tuition” in the “school expenses” provision as a clear and unambiguous indication that precollege private-school tuition was not part of the property-settlement agreement. Gaiennie also argues that there was no consideration of private school at the time the property-settlement agreement was signed. McMillin argues that the plain meaning of the phrase “any other expense related to daycare or school” necessarily encompasses private school tuition, as private-school tuition is a school-related expense.
¶10. We disagree. The absence of any reference to private school or private-school tuition in provision three controls the issue. “When a contract is clear and unambiguous, this Court ‘is not concerned with what the parties may have meant or intended but rather what they said, for the language employed in a contract is the surest guide to what was intended.’” Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So. 2d 329, 335 (Miss. 2000) (citing Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247, 252 (Miss. 1985)). Looking to the four corners of the agreement, we find that it is not ambiguous. Tuition is conspicuously absent from the “school expenses” provision. (See Zweber v. Zweber, 102 So. 3d 1098, 1101-02 (Miss. 2012) (holding that “flying lessons were not included in the final judgment of divorce).
¶11. Notwithstanding that the plain language of the agreement requires no private-school tuition, if we accepted Gaiennie’s argument that absence of the word “tuition” creates an ambiguity, the result would be no different, for we would first attempt to harmonize the provisions in accord with the parties’ apparent intent. The fact that tuition was specifically included within “college expenses,” but not “school expenses” reveals the parties’ intent that private-school tuition was not intended under the agreement.
¶12. Even if we went beyond the “four-corners test,” and looked to the intent of the parties, Gaiennie would still prevail. Neither party disputes that, at the time the agreement was signed, the eldest child was enrolled in public school. Neither party disputes that, at the time the agreement was signed, it was their intent for the children to attend public school. The children attended public school for nearly three years before a bullying incident prompted consideration of private school. We find that, because private-school tuition was not specified in the agreement, we must reverse the chancellor’s holding requiring Gaiennie to pay for one-half of the children’s private-school tuition.
This decision underscores a recurring theme in PSA-interpretation cases: If you don’t specify that a particular expense is covered by the agreement, don’t assume that the court is going to write that requirement into it for you. This is especially true in cases involving private-school enrollment.
Oh, and notice the reference to Ivison in the opinion. If you click on the link it will take you to a previous post on that case that further highlights the perils of leaving things in an agreement unsaid that really should be said.