McQuarrie v. McQuarrie, 496 P.3d 44

Melvin and Janette McQuarrie divorced in 2008 by a stipulated decree that required Melvin to pay alimony in two phases (a lower amount during child-support period, a higher amount thereafter), terminating upon death of either party or after 372 months, but said nothing in the alimony paragraphs about termination on remarriage.
Other parts of the decree expressly referenced remarriage (e.g., annuity beneficiary restrictions if Janette remarried; certain expense and car obligations that cease upon her remarriage; a triennial meeting provision prohibiting attendance by “spouses”).
Janette remarried in 2014. Melvin then moved to terminate alimony under Utah Code § 30-3-5(9), which presumptively ends alimony on the recipient’s remarriage unless the decree “specifically provides otherwise.”
The district court denied Melvin’s motion, finding the decree read as a whole showed the parties intended alimony to continue after remarriage. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning the decree as a whole "specifically provides" continuation.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that the statutory presumption is rebutted only by a specific provision that directly states alimony continues despite remarriage (not by inferences from the decree as a whole), reversed the court of appeals, and remanded; it declined to order disgorgement of post-remarriage payments without further district-court proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Melvin)	Defendant's Argument (Janette)	Held
Whether the divorce decree "specifically provides otherwise" so alimony survives the recipient’s remarriage	Decree does not contain an explicit proviso preserving alimony after remarriage; §30-3-5(9) therefore terminates alimony on Janette’s remarriage	Decree read as a whole shows parties contemplated continuation of alimony after remarriage (annuity language, expense provisions, triennial meeting, limited termination clauses)	Court holds statute requires a specific, direct provision addressing alimony that expressly states it will continue despite remarriage; inferences from other provisions are insufficient—alimony terminated by operation of law
Whether the court should order disgorgement of alimony paid after remarriage	Melvin asks for disgorgement of post-remarriage payments	Janette opposes disgorgement	Court declines to decide disgorgement on certiorari (no lower-court analysis); remands to district court to consider further proceedings and any disgorgement request

Lord v. Shaw, 682 P.2d 853 (Utah 1984) (held that decree must "specifically provide" to overcome statutory presumption that alimony terminates on remarriage)
Thayer v. Thayer, 378 P.3d 1232 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (stipulated divorce decrees are interpreted under contract principles; consider provisions in relation to each other)
Higley v. McDonald, 685 P.2d 496 (Utah 1984) (parties bound by terms of stipulated agreement)
Graves v. N. E. Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (legislative history is not law; statutory text controls)
In re Adoption of B.Y., 356 P.3d 1215 (Utah 2015) (public is charged with knowledge of the law; ignorance is no excuse)
State v. Lujan, 459 P.3d 992 (Utah 2020) (standard of review: de novo for court of appeals decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court)