Pyeatte v. Pyeatte

• Decision Date: 28 October 1982
• Docket Number: CA-CIV,No. 1,1
• Citation: 135 Ariz. 346,661 P.2d 196
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Margrethe May PYEATTE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. H. Charles PYEATTE, Respondent-Appellant. 5191.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 196

661 P.2d 196

135 Ariz. 346

In re the Marriage of Margrethe May PYEATTE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. H. Charles PYEATTE, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CIV 5191.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department B.

Oct. 28, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1983.

Review Denied March 22, 1983.

Favour & Quail, P.A. by Keith F. Quail, Prescott, for petitioner-appellee

Boyle, Brown, Eaton & Pecharich by William Lee Eaton, Prescott, for respondent-appellant.

OPINION

CORCORAN, Judge.

This is an appeal by the husband from an award of $23,000 in favor of the wife as ordered in a decree of dissolution. Two issues are before us: (1) The validity of an oral agreement entered into by the husband and wife during the marriage, whereby each spouse agreed to provide in turn the sole support for the marriage while the other spouse was obtaining further education; and, (2) whether the wife is entitled to restitution for benefits she provided for her husband's educational support in a dissolution action which follows closely upon the husband's graduation and admission to the Bar. The word "agreement" is used as a term of reference for the stated understanding between the husband and wife and not as a legal conclusion that the agreement is enforceable at law as a contract. The husband, H. Charles Pyeatte (appellant), and the wife, Margrethe May Pyeatte (appellee), were married in Tucson on December 27, 1972. At the time of the marriage both had received bachelors degrees. Appellee was coordinator of the surgical technical program at Pima College. Appellant was one of her students. In early 1974, the parties had discussions and reached an agreement concerning postgraduate education for both of them.

Appellee testified that they agreed she "would put him through three years of law school without his having to work, and when he finished, he would put [her] through for [her] masters degree without [her] having to work."

Appellant concedes the existence of an agreement. Although there was a claim by appellant that his agreement with appellee was qualified by certain contingencies, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings made by the trial court after the trial:

The Court is of the opinion that there was a definite agreement that the respondent [appellant] would pay for the support of petitioner [appellee] while the petitioner [appellee] obtained her master's degree without her having to work. The Court is further of the opinion that there was no contingency expressed or implied that this would not be carried out or enforced in the event of a divorce. Petitioner [appellee] carried out her part of the agreement in supporting the respondent [appellant] while he obtained his law degree.

Appellant attended law school in Tucson, Arizona, from 1974 until his graduation. He was admitted to the State Bar shortly thereafter.

During appellant's first two years of law school appellee supported herself and appellant on the salary she earned at Pima College. During the last year, appellee lost her job, whereupon savings were used to support the couple. Although each spouse contributed to the savings, a significant amount was furnished by appellee.

After appellant's admission to the Bar, the couple moved to Prescott, Arizona, where appellant was employed by a law firm. Both parties realized that appellant's salary would not be sufficient to support the marriage and pay for appellee's education for a masters degree simultaneously. Appellee then agreed to defer her plans for a year or two until her husband got started in his legal career. In the meantime, she obtained part-time employment as a teacher.

In April, 1978, appellant told appellee that he no longer wanted to be married to her, and in June of 1978, she filed a petition for dissolution. Trial was had in March of 1979, and a decree of dissolution was granted. At the time of the trial, there was little community property and no dispute as to division of any community or separate property. Spousal maintenance was neither sought by nor granted to appellee.

The trial court determined that there was an agreement between the parties, that appellee fully performed her part of that agreement, that appellant had not performed his part of the agreement, and that appellee had been damaged thereby.

Based on appellee's expert testimony on the cost of furthering her education, in accordance with the agreement, the trial court awarded judgment of $23,000 against appellant as damages for breach of contract, with additional directions that the judgment be payable through the court clerk on a quarterly basis in a sum of not less than ten percent of appellant's net quarterly income.

The trial court directed appellant to use his best efforts to produce income and to keep accurate records of his income-producing activities, which records would be available to appellee upon request but not more frequently than on a quarterly basis. The court also retained jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of supervising the administration of the payment of the judgment and the keeping of records by the appellant. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. On appeal, appellant argues that the agreement did not rise to the level of a binding contract because, among other things, the terms thereof were not definite and could not be legally enforced.

Appellee advances three theories as grounds upon which the trial court's award should be upheld:

1. The agreement between the parties was a binding contract. Appellant's failure to perform after appellee had fully performed her obligations renders appellant liable in damages.

2. Appellant's education was obtained through the exhaustion of the community resources. Appellee argues that her financing of appellant's education was an extraordinary expenditure and that the trial court's award should be sustained as a lien upon appellant's separate estate to the extent of those expenditures pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-318.

3. If the agreement is not enforceable as a binding contract, appellee is nevertheless entitled to restitution in quantum meruit to prevent appellant's unjust enrichment because he received his education at appellee's expense.

We will address each argument in turn.

The Contract Claim

Although the terms and requirements of an enforceable contract need not be stated in minute detail, it is fundamental that, in order to be binding, an agreement must be definite and certain so that the liability of the parties may be exactly fixed. Terms necessary for the required definiteness frequently include time of performance, place of performance, price or compensation, penalty provisions, and other material requirements of the agreement. 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 36(2) at 647-61 (1963); 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 75 at 413-15 (1964). In Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes and Son Construction Co., 112 Ariz. 392, 542 P.2d 817 (1975), the court found that a contractual relationship based upon an oral agreement did not exist between a general contractor and a subcontractor because "[o]nly the price and work involved were agreed upon; other provisions which might in the end have proven critical were not." 112 Ariz. at 395, 542 P.2d at 820.

Upon examining the parties' agreement in this instance, it is readily apparent that a sufficient mutual understanding regarding critical provisions of their agreement did not exist. For example, no agreement was made regarding the time when appellee would attend graduate school and appellant would be required to assume their full support. Both parties concede that appellee could not have begun her masters program immediately after appellant's graduation because his beginning salary was not sufficient to provide both for her education and the couple's support. Appellee told appellant she was willing to wait a year or two until he "got on his feet" before starting her program. Nothing more definite than that was ever agreed upon. Furthermore, although appellee agreed to support appellant while he attended law school for three years, no corresponding time limitation was placed upon her within which to finish her education. Even if we assume that the agreement contemplated appellee's enrolling as a full-time student, the length of time necessary to complete a masters degree varies considerably depending upon the requirements of the particular program and the number of classes an individual elects to take at one time. Such a loosely worded agreement can hardly be said to have fixed appellant's liability with certainty.

The agreement lacks a number of other essential terms which prevent it from becoming binding. Appellee's place of education is not mentioned at all, yet there are masters programs available throughout the country. Whether or not they would be required to relocate in another state should she choose an out-of-state program was not agreed upon. Appellant testified at trial that "that particular problem was really never resolved." Nor was there any agreement concerning the cost of the program to which appellee would be entitled under this agreement. There can be several thousand dollars' difference in tuition, fees, and other expenses between any two masters programs depending upon resident status, public versus private institutions, and other factors. Appellant testified that at the time of the "contract," neither he nor his wife had any idea as to the specific dollar amounts that would be involved.

Since the trial court found that there was no "contingency expressed or implied" regarding the enforceability of the agreement in the event of a dissolution, the appellant asserts that the absence of such a mutual understanding further demonstrates the lack of specificity. A resolution of that issue is not necessary for a determination of this case.

Appellee urges us to enforce this agreement because contracts should be interpreted, whenever reasonable, in such a way as to uphold the...