Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrial
attorneyappeal

Related Cases

Morgan v. Wiser, 711 S.W.2d 220, 61 A.L.R.4th 1173
View Case »
Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192, 33 S.Ct. 44, 57 L.Ed. 184
View Case »
Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102, 379 P.2d 269
View Case »
Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas, 488 S.W.2d 151
View Case »
Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Div. v. Mark Wendt Const., 137 Or.App. 351, 904 P.2d 661 (Table)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Marriage of Graham, 194 Colo. 429, 574 P.2d 75

Facts

The parties were married on August 5, 1968, in Denver, Colorado. During their six-year marriage, the wife, Anne P. Graham, worked full-time as an airline stewardess, contributing approximately 70% of the couple's income, while the husband, Dennis J. Graham, pursued his education, obtaining both a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in business administration. The couple filed for dissolution of marriage on February 4, 1974, and the trial court found that the husband's education was jointly owned property, awarding the wife a portion of the future earnings value of the degree.

The parties jointly filed a petition for dissolution, on February 4, 1974, in the Boulder County District Court. Petitioner did not make a claim for maintenance or for attorney fees.

Issue

Whether a master's degree in business administration obtained during marriage constitutes marital property subject to division under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act.

The issue here is whether traditional, narrow concepts of what constitutes 'property' render the courts impotent to provide a remedy for an obvious injustice.

Rule

The Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act defines marital property as all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage, excluding certain categories such as property acquired by gift or after legal separation. The court must divide marital property in proportions deemed just after considering all relevant factors.

The Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act requires that a court shall divide marital property, without regard to marital misconduct, in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'property' under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act and concluded that an educational degree does not meet the criteria of property as it lacks exchangeable value, is personal to the holder, and cannot be assigned or transferred. The court emphasized that while the wife's financial support during the husband's education is a relevant factor in determining maintenance or property division, the education itself is not subject to division as marital property.

An educational degree, such as an M.B.A., is simply not encompassed even by the broad views of the concept of 'property.' It does not have an exchange value or any objective transferable value on an open market.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the husband's master's degree is not marital property subject to division under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

The husband prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court ruled that his master's degree was not considered marital property, thus not subject to division.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that an education is not itself 'property' subject to division under the Act, although it was one factor to be considered in determining maintenance or in arriving at an equitable property division.

You must be