Can divorcing spouses enforce student support contracts in Utah? Ashby v. Ashby Explained

In Ashby v. Ashby, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether divorcing spouses can pursue claims based on agreements where one spouse supports the other through professional school. The case involved Gloria Ashby, who supported her husband Dallen through medical school under an alleged agreement that he would later support her at a higher standard of living.

Background and Facts

Gloria worked as the primary breadwinner while Dallen completed undergraduate studies and attended medical school from 2000 to 2004. She claimed they entered a binding contract where she agreed to support him financially in exchange for his promise to support her at a certain standard of living with his future medical income. When they separated shortly after Dallen began his medical internship, Gloria filed for divorce and sued for both breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether Martinez v. Martinez bars claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract based on spousal support during education, and (2) under what conditions student support contracts between divorcing spouses may be enforced.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished between unjust enrichment claims and breach of contract claims. The unjust enrichment claim was barred because it was “materially indistinguishable” from the equitable restitution claim rejected in Martinez. Since unjust enrichment presupposes no enforceable contract exists, it essentially seeks the same remedy Martinez prohibited.

However, the court held that student support contracts are enforceable if they meet normal contract requirements and don’t unreasonably constrain the court’s equitable duties. Critically, any breach of contract claims must be brought within the divorce action itself or they are waived. The court emphasized that alimony is not an adequate substitute for contractual remedies, as contract damages provide the “benefit of the bargain” while alimony remains discretionary.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear boundaries for student support claims in Utah divorces. Practitioners should file contract claims within divorce proceedings rather than as separate actions. The court also provided guidance for trial courts: first determine contract enforceability, then grant legal remedies if enforceable, and finally determine alimony and property division considering the contractual baseline. This framework protects legitimate agreements while preventing speculative claims from undermining divorce proceedings.