Daughter takes being a spoiled brat to unprecedented heights

That's out. Word on the street is that NO ONE eats there these days.

 

So here are a couple other things that make this case appear not as cut-and-dried "screw you, girl" even for the college portion:

1) There is a mention of a college fund. I don't know if this is a 529, but that is the most common savings vehicle. And it is worth noting that, upon turning 18, the child owns the account.

http://www.savingforcollege.com/articles/should-you-open-an-ugmautma-529

Establishing the 529 account in your own name as owner does not change the custodian's legal obligation under the UTMA to use the funds for the benefit of that particular child. If you were to change the beneficiary and use the 529 money for a different child, or deny your son's right to take direct ownership at the age of 18 (if that is the legal age in your state), you are probably in violation of the UTMA. An attorney can help explain this to you.

2) Reading up on the case, it sounds like the legal strategy might be to piggyback on the family-court rulings regarding child support in divorce cases. Divorced parents can and often are required to pay for college. So, is there a compelling legal reason that a divorced parent would be on the hook for an adult child but a married parent wouldn't?

 

You accuse me of being stupid and prescribe untoward motives, yet gloss right over everything in that Daily Record article that is contrary to your wholesale assumptions.

Case-in-point: the parents are quoted multiple times saying access to the college fund has not been cut-off, that their daughter will be able to use it. But utilizing the college fund and paying for college may be two different things. We don't know if there's $100,000 in there - enough to cover four years of tuition and board at a four-year state school - or if there's $10,000 in there.

What they're fighting over is whether there's an affirmative obligation to continue paying for schooling of an otherwise emancipated adult. Schooling, which unlike elementary, middle and high school, the parents have no legal requirement to provide. It sounds like New Jersey case law may allow that, based on the family lawyers who were quoted, under the theory that an 18-year-old is not necessarily emancipated. That is an unusual proposition, and would get laughed out of court in my jurisdiction.

The divorce theory is largely a non sequitur, because the obligation comes from a concept of equitable distribution. An adult child does not have a right to his fathers' money, but his mother may have a right to certain assets if there was a marriage and divorce. Those assets might obligations taken on during the marriage that don't survive the marriage itself. None of that exists when dealing with an emancipated, adult daughter.

 

Why is the friend allowing the boyfriend to live with them? She'll end up pregnant again in no time.

Boot him out and let him bum off of someone else.

 

You're talking past LTL's point. It is my understanding that's there's an almost universal approach to the billing of private school tuition, that approach being that you pay for it a year at a time. You might get billed for it in installments (e.g., fall portion, spring portion), but you're on the hook for the whole year just the same. It's sort of like health clubs used to be (maybe still are?), in which you buy X mos. of membership for a flat fee, the club arranges to have that financed and then you make payments. You're still on the hook for the whole thing (i.e., the total cost of X mos. of membership). Private schools would almost have to do it that way, seeing as how they contract with teachers, etc., for an entire year and therefore have to have some revenue certainty to keep the doors open.

You can google the contract*, and it's pretty clear that is what's in play here. The parents "bought" the spring when they sent their little darling there in August.

*http://www.morriscatholic.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/Class_of_2018_Registration_Papers_1.pdf

 

I think it's safe to say that, despite the Record's relatively exhaustive look into this, there is way, way, way, way, way, way, way more going on behind the scenes that any of us know, or is probably our business.

 

No, I'm not. I'm responding to his last point about divorce law and being obligated to pay for a child's tuition as part of a divorce. This is not a divorce. The situation is different, as is the law.

But getting back to the discussion about high school tuition, the whole point I was making earlier was that it's wrong for anyone to assume they know what's in the contract. My earlier statements were that the parents were clearly on the hook for the fall, but it's not clear that they are for the spring, and that even if they are, it's the school that should be seeking enforcement not the daughter. Since you have, thankfully, pulled up a blank contract for the school and we can look at it without making gross assumptions, it reinforces my point that it's the school that should be seeking payment instead of piggy-backing on this girl's poorly considered lawsuit.

 

The BF is not. The daughter and the baby are at home. The last I heard the BF took a vacation to Florida for a few weeks - after he got booted from his mom's trailer.

 

True.

However, try as I might, I cannot come up with any scenario that would explain the mother calling the girl a "foul name" and saying she never wanted to speak to her again, as the teacher witnessed.

 

It doesn't make any difference what's in the contract. The parents should pay it if they have any interest in their own integrity.

 

Maybe you should spend a little less time being a douche and read my comment yourself.
I said that UNLESS the contract with the private school specifically ties them up and forces them to pay for the entire school year, they're well within their rights to wash their hands of their child once she turns 18.
Yes, standard private school contracts usually mandate this type of payment. I get that. That's probably the case here.
What I was responding to was the talk in this thread about whether or not, contract notwithstanding, these parents could just decide to stop paying for their daughter's education.
High school or not, if they felt like pulling her from that place of education, they could.
There is no rule that says her parents have to be nice and let her graduate where she has attended school. Would it be a dick move to take her out of the place she's been for three years? Yes. But from what I've read on this story, she voluntarily left their house because she couldn't live by their rules. This is a consequence of that decision.
Likewise, there's no reason they should have to pay for her college education.
Again, they're likely going to have to pay for that final semester. It seems like a moot point. But maybe you should spend a little less time trying to talk down to people on this board and more time actively engaging in a discussion rather than trying to prove your moral superiority.
Douche.