Miss.S.Ct. grants interlocs on oral promise to pay for college

July 17, 2014, the Court granted interlocutory appeal in two related cases concerning a father’s oral promises to pay for his children’s college expenses. They are nos. 2013-2037 and 2013-2038 on the Court’s docket and involve the Huntington family.

David Huntington and Cindy Huntington divorced in 1998 when their children William and Margaret were young. In March 2013, William filed a complaint in the circuit court of Copiah County grounded in the breach of an oral contract. The suit claimed that David had repeatedly promised to pay all expenses related to William’s college education. William started at Meridian Community College in the fall of 2010. Upon finishing there, he enrolled at Ferris State University in Big Rapid Michigan. William cites an e-mail from David to Cindy in April 2009 in which David stated that he planned to get his children the best education with or without the help of Cindy. David filed a motion to transfer the case to the chancery court where David and Cindy were divorced. The trial court denied the motion, David filed an interlocutory appeal and the Court granted it in 2013-2037.

Margaret filed her own lawsuit alleging that in Jan. 2007, David sent a letter in which he specifically promised to pay for Margaret’s “college as well as all other college-related expenses, including, but not limited to, tuition, room and board, housing, wardrobes, transportation, spending money, insurance, medical bills, etc. for both an undergraduate and graduate degree.” Based on this she entered Millsaps. David paid until “November 17, 2012, when he reneged and breached the contract. After a family dispute, Petitioner became enraged and intentionally and maliciously
breached the contract and ceased paying for Respondent altogether.” Margaret filed suit. David moved to transfer the case to chancery. That motion was denied and David appealed.

David Huntington v. William Huntington, No. 2013-M-02037 response to petition for interlocutory appeal

David Huntington v. Margaret Huntington,No. 2013-2038 response to petition for interloc. appeal

(David’s petitions are not available electronically or I would post them here).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s