The father does not pay for the expensive foreign university if the choice is not shared

The father does not share half of the expenses incurred by the mother in order for her daughter to study at an expensive foreign university if the choice is not shared. The Court of Cassation thus dismissed the appeal of the ex-wife and daughter against the no to sharing 50% of the hefty bill paid to be able to pursue a degree at a prestigious foreign university. Unsuccessfully, the applicants had pointed out that the obligation of child support rests on both parents. And that expenses made in the interest of the children must be reimbursed even without the prior consent of the other spouse. The defence had, in fact, emphasised that "the schooling and medical expenses, which are charged to the parents "pro rata", at the time of separation and divorce, are not extraordinary expenses in the strict sense, but supplement the maintenance allowance, sharing its "ordinary" nature".

Hence the request for the payment of the sums due, to which the girl had added that for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the disinterest shown by the parent for her growth, amounting to 90 thousand euro and for the economic prejudice set at 10 thousand euro. All this was to be added to the already recognised, at the divorce, maintenance allowance of EUR 1,300 per month.

Also supporting the claims was the argument of disappointed hopes and expectations. The daughter complained, in fact, of having been directed from an early age, by her father himself, to private and foreign-derived institutes, thus making her grow up with the inclination that she would inevitably cultivate in the path of school maturity and then in the world of work. But not even the theme of unfulfilled hopes made its way to the judges of legitimacy, who rejected all the applications.

The Supreme Court clarifies that the rule, affirmed by the defence, according to which expenses incurred in the interests of the children may be reimbursed evenwithout the prior consent of the other spouse, "may be derogated from by a specific court order quantifying the maintenance partly as a fixed amount and partly in accordance with the modalities of pro rata reimbursement of further expenses, the identification of which may be left to the agreement of the parties". In the case examined both in the divorce proceedings and in the subsequent revision proceedings, the obligation topay pro rata the extraordinary expenses (both university and medical) for the daughter was subject to the parties' agreement on the expenses. And thus to a prior agreement that had not been there. The mother was therefore not entitled to reimbursement. While the father had always paid maintenance and "all the other sums charged to him by the court orders, as documented by the transfers and not contested".