## Facts

- Karen C. Martinez and Jess M. Martinez married in 1968 with limited education; Jess later pursued college and medical school, graduating in 1981.
- Jess primarily financed his education through his earnings, student loans, the G.I. Bill, and a bequest; Karen did not make direct financial contributions to his schooling.
- During the marriage, Karen provided substantial nonfinancial support and made sacrifices that assisted Jess in completing medical school and an internship; her earned income was minor and used for family expenses.
- The parties had three children (born 1970–1975); Karen filed for divorce in 1983, and the divorce decree entered in 1985.
- The trial court awarded Karen the marital home (subject to Jess’s lien for half the equity), child support, time-limited alimony, and required Jess to maintain insurance for the children.
- The trial court declined to treat the medical degree as marital property, but considered Jess’s ability to earn as relevant to support obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellate court may authorize a new, independent divorce remedy—“equitable restitution”—to compensate a spouse for contributions to the other spouse’s professional education, in addition to alimony, child support, and property division.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ recognition of “equitable restitution” as a separate, additional divorce remedy.
- The court held that compensation for a spouse’s contributions to the other spouse’s education must be addressed within the existing statutory framework governing property division and alimony.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with limiting relief to traditional divorce remedies.

## Legal Principles

- A professional degree is not marital property subject to division, though the degree-holder’s increased earning capacity may be considered in setting support.
- Utah divorce remedies are governed by statute; courts must award relief through established categories such as property division, alimony, and child support.
- Creating an additional restitutionary remedy risks duplicative recovery because the same contributions and sacrifices can be weighed in alimony and equitable distribution.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to account for nonfinancial contributions and opportunity costs by adjusting alimony (amount and duration) and equitable property distribution.

## Conclusion

The court rejected “equitable restitution” as an independent, supplemental remedy in divorce and required that a spouse’s contributions to the other spouse’s professional education be compensated, if at all, through alimony and property division under existing Utah law.


Martinez v. Martinez, 818 P.2d 538 (Utah 1991)