## Facts

- Wilma Cornell Solomon and Lloyd Talbott Findley dissolved their marriage after filing a joint, pro se petition in 1976.
- The petition included Findley’s promise to provide educational funds “to the best of his ability” for their child, Adrienne, “through college or until [she] reaches age of 25 whichever comes first.”
- The superior court entered a default dissolution decree that approved the parties’ agreement and incorporated the educational-support provision.
- After Adrienne reached the age of majority and attended college, Solomon sought to enforce the educational-support provision in the dissolution case.
- The dissolution court denied relief, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to enforce child support once the child was no longer a minor.
- Solomon then filed a separate civil action for breach of contract on her own behalf and on Adrienne’s behalf, seeking enforcement of the educational-support promise.
- The trial court dismissed the contract action, ruling that the agreement had merged into the dissolution decree and the claim therefore arose from the judgment.
- The court of appeals reversed, allowing the contract claim to proceed, and the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a divorcing parent’s contractual promise to provide post-majority educational support merges into a dissolution decree when the decree incorporates the agreement.
2. Whether merger, if applied, bars a separate breach-of-contract action to enforce post-majority educational support.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and reversed the trial court’s dismissal.
- The Court held that the post-majority educational-support provision did not merge into the dissolution decree.
- The Court permitted Solomon to pursue an independent breach-of-contract action to enforce the post-majority educational-support obligation.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the contract claim.
- To the extent earlier precedent suggested merger would bar contractual enforcement of post-majority support, the Court disapproved that approach.

## Legal Principles

- A dissolution court’s statutory authority to order or enforce child support generally ends when the child reaches the age of majority.
- Parents may voluntarily assume enforceable obligations beyond statutory support duties through a contract, including agreements for post-majority educational support.
- Merger of an agreement into a dissolution decree depends on intent and the court’s authority; incorporation in a decree does not, by itself, extinguish an otherwise valid contractual obligation that exceeds the dissolution court’s jurisdiction.
- When a dissolution court lacks jurisdiction to compel or enforce post-majority support as a support order, an agreed post-majority support provision may remain independently enforceable in a separate civil contract action.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a post-majority educational-support promise incorporated into a dissolution decree did not merge into the decree where the dissolution court lacked jurisdiction to enforce such support as part of the dissolution proceeding; the obligation remained enforceable through an independent breach-of-contract action.


Solomon v. Findley, 167 Ariz. 409, 808 P.2d 294 (Ariz. 1991)