Opinion ID: 2523834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: while utah recognizes a claim for breach of a student support contract between divorcing spouses, such a claim must be brought, as a matter of policy, within the divorce action

Text: ¶ 18 Dallen argues that, since the alleged contract between him and Gloria involves matters intrinsic to the marriage relationship, it is unenforceable because it lacks a written document with all the formalities necessary to bind the parties and memorialize the terms and conditions of the agreement. He also contends that section 30-3-5 of the Utah Code, which provides standards for alimony awards, provides the relief that Gloria seeks and renders separate enforcement of her contract claim both improper and unnecessary. Finally, Dallen asserts that Utah's strong public policy of protecting the institution of marriage, as evidenced by our opinion in Martinez, would be undermined if the alleged contract between him and Gloria were enforced. ¶ 19 Gloria responds by asserting that Dallen's distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic postnuptial contracts has no basis in our case law, and that, even if it did, the distinction should not be adopted because it is unworkable in practice. She responds to Dallen's arguments under section 30-3-5 by noting that alimony is an inadequate substitute for relief available by contract because, under contract, a party is entitled to the benefit of her bargain, which might be more than she might be able to obtain under alimony. Finally, Gloria disputes Dallen's policy arguments and contends that enforcing specific promises between spouses would protect, rather than undermine, the institution of marriage. We address each of Dallen's arguments, and Gloria's responses, in turn.