## Facts

- The parties divorced in 1979; permanent orders entered in 1980 made no provision for child support.
- At the time of the permanent orders, the parties had two daughters, ages 19 and 17.
- The father voluntarily contributed to the daughters’ support while they attended college.
- The father stopped supporting the older daughter when she turned 21 during her fourth year of college.
- The father later stopped supporting the younger daughter, Karen, when she turned 21 during her third year of college.
- After payments stopped, the mother moved in 1984 for a child-support award for Karen.
- The trial court ordered the father to pay $200 per month until Karen received her undergraduate degree or was otherwise emancipated, relying on findings that college was necessary for her career and she reasonably expected parental support.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may impose a new child-support obligation for a non-disabled child over age 21 who is attending college when no prior support order extended support beyond majority.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held the trial court lacked authority to impose a new support obligation for a non-disabled child over 21 when no prior support order provided for post-majority support.
- The court concluded the court of appeals misapplied the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act and improperly extended the court’s earlier decision in *Koltay*.

## Legal Principles

- A parent’s statutory duty to support generally terminates when the child reaches age 21 (as defined at the time), unless the child is physically or emotionally disabled or a valid prior order or agreement provides otherwise.
- A court may not create a new, enforceable post-majority support duty for college expenses based solely on need, expectations, or equitable considerations after emancipation.
- *Koltay* supports enforcement or modification of an existing order (or agreement) addressing post-majority educational support; it does not authorize courts to impose such obligations when the dissolution orders contained no child-support provision.
- Voluntary contributions to an adult child’s education do not, without statutory or contractual grounds, become a judicially enforceable support obligation.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated an order requiring a father to pay college-related support for a non-disabled daughter over 21 because no pre-emancipation support order or agreement authorized post-majority support, and the court’s child-support authority could not be extended by equitable findings alone.


In re Marriage of Plummer, 735 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1987)