In re Marriage of Graham, 194 Colo. 429, 574 P.2d 75 (Colo. 1978)
In re Marriage of Graham is a foundational case in family law addressing whether an academic or professional degree obtained during marriage constitutes "marital property" subject to equitable distribution at divorce. At a time when many jurisdictions were grappling with how to treat human capital developed during marriage, the Colorado Supreme Court drew a bright doctrinal line: an educational degree, even when financed by the joint efforts and sacrifices of spouses, is not a divisible property interest.
Does an educational degree (here, an MBA) earned by one spouse during marriage constitute marital property subject to valuation and equitable distribution upon divorce?
Under Colorado's Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, marital property consists of property acquired by either spouse during the marriage, subject to statutory exclusions. To qualify as "property" for equitable division, an interest must be an asset with exchangeable, transferable, or marketable value or otherwise be susceptible to ownership, valuation, and division. An educational degree or the corresponding increase in earning capacity is not property within this meaning. Contributions by a spouse to the other spouse's education may be considered in awarding maintenance or in the equitable division of actual, existing marital assets, but the degree itself is not a divisible asset.
No. An educational degree obtained during marriage, including an MBA, is not marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's determination.
Graham is a leading case rejecting the classification of educational degrees as marital property. It shaped the majority rule in many jurisdictions and stands in contrast to minority approaches (e.g., New York's O'Brien) that treat licenses or degrees as divisible assets. The case is doctrinally important for clarifying the definition of "property" under equitable distribution statutes and practically important for channeling fairness concerns into maintenance, reimbursement, or distribution of actual assets, rather than speculative valuations of human capital. For students, Graham provides a template for analyzing asset characterization and the limits of judicial valuation in domestic relations.