Pyeatte v. Pyeatte

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B
135 Ariz. 346, 661 P.2d 196 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A spouse who makes financial contributions to their partner's education in expectation of a reciprocal benefit, pursuant to an agreement that is too indefinite to be a legally enforceable contract, is entitled to restitution for unjust enrichment if the marriage ends before they can realize any benefit from that education.

Facts:

H. Charles Pyeatte (appellant) and Margrethe May Pyeatte (appellee) married in 1972.
In 1974, the Pyeattes orally agreed that Margrethe would financially support Charles through his three years of law school without him having to work.
In exchange, Charles agreed he would then financially support Margrethe through her master's degree program without her having to work.
Margrethe fully supported Charles from 1974 until he graduated from law school and was admitted to the Bar, using her income and savings.
After Charles began working as a lawyer, the couple determined his salary was insufficient to support them and pay for Margrethe's schooling simultaneously.
Margrethe agreed to defer her education for a year or two until Charles was more established in his career.
In April 1978, shortly after he began working, Charles informed Margrethe that he wanted a divorce.

Procedural Posture:

Margrethe May Pyeatte filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against H. Charles Pyeatte in an Arizona trial court.
The trial court found that the parties had an enforceable contract and that H. Charles Pyeatte had breached it.
The trial court entered a judgment awarding Margrethe May Pyeatte $23,000 as damages for breach of contract.
H. Charles Pyeatte, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a spouse who supported their partner through professional school, based on a mutual oral agreement for reciprocal support that is too indefinite to be an enforceable contract, entitled to restitution to prevent the unjust enrichment of the student spouse when the marriage dissolves shortly after graduation?

Opinions:

Majority - Corcoran, Judge

Yes. A spouse who financially supported their partner's education based on a mutual agreement is entitled to restitution for unjust enrichment, even if the agreement is not an enforceable contract. The court first determined that the oral agreement between the Pyeattes was too indefinite to be a binding contract because it lacked essential terms, such as the time of performance, location, and cost of Margrethe's future education. However, the court found that Charles was unjustly enriched by receiving the benefit of his legal education entirely at Margrethe's expense. Because the marriage ended immediately after his graduation and before the community could benefit from his increased earning capacity, equity demands that Margrethe be compensated for her financial contributions to prevent an unjust windfall for Charles. This remedy of restitution is appropriate in cases that demonstrate an agreement between spouses, an extraordinary unilateral effort by one spouse, and a dissolution that occurs before the community realizes any benefit from that effort, leaving little or no marital property to divide.

Analysis:

This case establishes a crucial equitable remedy for spouses in "working spouse/student spouse" scenarios where a divorce occurs before the supporting spouse can benefit from their investment in the other's education. It distinguishes these situations from long-term marriages where both partners share in the fruits of an advanced degree. By allowing a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, the court provides a path for recovery when traditional contract and property division remedies are unavailable, as a professional degree is not considered marital property. This ruling influences how courts in similar cases value financial contributions toward a spouse's education, especially when a marriage ends shortly after graduation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pyeatte v. Pyeatte (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature