Uniform Dissolution Of Marriage Act — C.R.S. 14-10
Uniform Dissolution Of Marriage Act — C.R.S. 14-10| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 16 — Colorado Laws |
If any man who has read and understood the following then considers marriage his sanity and reason should be placed in question as a matter of law.
14-10-101 - Short title.
14-10-102 - Purposes - rules of construction.
14-10-103 - Definition and interpretation of terms.
14-10-104 - Uniformity of application and construction.
14-10-104.5 - Legislative declaration.
14-10-105 - Application of Colorado rules of civil procedure.
14-10-106 - Dissolution of marriage - legal separation.
14-10-107 - Commencement - pleadings - abolition of existing defenses - automatic, temporary injunction - enforcement.
14-10-107.5 - Entry of appearance to establish support.
14-10-107.7 - Required notice of involvement with department of human services.
14-10-107.8 - Required notice of prior restraining orders to prevent domestic abuse - petitions for dissolution of marriage or legal separation.
14-10-108 - Temporary order or temporary injunction.
14-10-109 - Enforcement of restraining orders.
14-10-110 - Irretrievable breakdown.
14-10-111 - Declaration of invalidity.
14-10-112 - Separation agreement.
14-10-113 - Disposition of property.
14-10-114 - Maintenance.
14-10-115 - Child support - guidelines - schedule of basic child support obligations - repeal.
14-10-116 - Appointments in domestic relations cases - representation of child - special advocates.
14-10-117 - Payment of maintenance or child support.
14-10-118 - Enforcement of orders.
14-10-119 - Attorney's fees.
14-10-120 - Decree.
14-10-120.3 - Dissolution of marriage upon affidavit - requirements.
14-10-120.5 - Petition for dissolution of marriage - fee - assessment - displaced homemakers fund.
14-10-121 - Independence of provisions of decree or temporary order.
14-10-122 - Modification and termination of provisions for maintenance, support, and property disposition - automatic lien.
14-10-123 - Commencement of proceedings concerning allocation of parental responsibilities - jurisdiction.
14-10-123.3 - Requests for parental responsibility for a child by grandparents.
14-10-123.4 - Rights of children in matters relating to parental responsibilities.
14-10-123.5 Joint custody (Repealed 1999)
14-10-123.6 - Required notice of prior restraining orders to prevent domestic abuse - proceedings concerning parental responsibilities relating to a child.
14-10-123.7 - Parental education - legislative declaration.
14-10-123.8 - Access to records.
14-10-124 - Best interests of child.
14-10-125 - Temporary orders.
14-10-126 - Interviews.
14-10-127 - Evaluation and reports.
14-10-128 - Hearings.
14-10-128.5 - Appointment of arbitrator - de novo review of award.
14-10-129 - Modification of parenting time.
14-10-129.5 - Disputes concerning parenting time.
14-10-130 - Judicial supervision.
14-10-131 - Modification of custody or decision-making responsibility.
14-10-131.5 - Joint custody modification - termination (Repealed, 1999)
14-10-131.7 - Designation of custody for the purpose of other state and federal statutes.
14-10-131.8 - Construction of 1999 revisions.
14-10-132 - Affidavit practice.
14-10-133 - Effective date - applicability.
Couples with a contractual arrangement under a marriage license
Biological parents of minor children
14-10-106 - Dissolution of marriage - legal separation.
14-10-107 - Commencement - pleadings - abolition of existing defenses - automatic, temporary injunction - enforcement.
14-10-107.5 - Entry of appearance to establish support.
14-10-107.8 - Required notice of prior restraining orders to prevent domestic abuse - petitions for dissolution of marriage or legal separation.
14-10-108 - Temporary order or temporary injunction.
14-10-109 - Enforcement of restraining orders.
14-10-112 - Separation agreement.
14-10-114 - Maintenance.
14-10-116 - Appointments in domestic relations cases - representation of child - special advocates.
14-10-119 - Attorney's fees.
14-10-120 - Decree.
14-10-120.3 - Dissolution of marriage upon affidavit - requirements.
14-10-123 - Commencement of proceedings concerning allocation of parental responsibilities - jurisdiction.
14-10-124 - Best interests of child.
14-10-125 - Temporary orders.
14-10-126 - Interviews.
14-10-127 - Evaluation and reports.
14-10-129.5 - Disputes concerning parenting time.
14-10-130 - Judicial supervision.
14-10-131 - Modification of custody or decision-making responsibility.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act".
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 520, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-1.
Law reviews. For note, "The Extraterritorial Validity of Colorado Divorces", see 7 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 271 (1935). For article, "Divorce -- Stalemate", see 16 Dicta 107 (1939). For article, "What Divorce Statutes Are Now in Effect in Colorado?", see 21 Dicta 68 (1944). For article, "Ten Years of Domestic Relations in Colorado -- 1940-1950", see 27 Dicta 399 (1950). For article, "Workmen's Compensation, Attorneys and Family Law", see 31 Dicta 1 (1954). For article, "A Proposal for Some Modest Changes in Divorce and Annulment Laws", see 26 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 221 (1954). For article, "Colorado's New Divorce Law", see 35 Dicta 219 (1958). For note, "The New Colorado Divorce Statute", see 31 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 207 (1959). For article, "Due Process in Involuntary Civil Commitment and Incompetency Adjudication Proceedings: Where Does Colorado Stand?", see 46 Den. L.J. 516 (1969). For article, "Divorce Policy and Divorce Reform", see 42 U. Colo. L. Rev. 403 (1971). For article, "Effects of Reconciliation on Separation Agreements in Colorado", see 51 U. Colo. L. Rev. 399 (1980). For article, "Mediation of Contested Child Custody Disputes", see 11 Colo. Law. 336 (1982). For article, "Colorado: Now a Community Property State?", see 25 Colo. Law. 55 (May 1996). For article, "Blending Spousal Tort Claims and Colorado Divorce Actions", see 25 Colo. Law. 57 (May 1996).
Act applicable regardless of date marriage began . Regardless of the date the marriage began, if the dissolution of marriage occurs after the effective date of this article, the parties are subject to all provisions of the uniform act. In re Lester, 647 P.2d 688 (Colo. App. 1982).
(1) This article shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes.
(2) Its underlying purposes are:
(a) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that have arisen between parties to a marriage;
(b) To mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage; and
(c) To make the law of legal dissolution of marriage more effective for dealing with the realities of matrimonial experience by making an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship the sole basis for its dissolution.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 520, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-2.
Every state as a sovereign has rightful and legitimate concern in marital status of those persons who are domiciled within the state. Viernes v. District Court, 181 Colo. 284, 509 P.2d 306 (1973).
Marriage is favored over less formalized relationships. The state of Colorado has an interest in marriage, and marriage is favored over less formalized relationships which exist without the benefit of marriage. In re Newman v. Newman, 653 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1982).
Temporary support orders further purpose of article to mitigate potential harm to spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage by maintaining status quo pending final disposition of dissolution proceeding. In re Price, 727 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1986).
Joinder of interspousal tort claims with marriage dissolution proceedings precluded. Marriage dissolution action cannot be joined with an interspousal claim sounding in tort since this section encourages the amicable settlement of disputes between parties to a marriage. Simmons v. Simmons, 773 P.2d 602 (Colo. App. 1988).
This act provides separate sections that govern the different elements of a dissolution order, specifically property disposition, maintenance, child support, and attorney fees. The court is required to make separate orders regarding these elements based on separate considerations, and may not commingle one element with another. In re Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992).
The public policies to be furthered under this act include dividing of assets equitably and mitigating the harm to spouses and children. These policies take precedence over any contract arguments that may be raised by either spouse. Thus, the trial court was correct in refusing husband's indemnification argument and in interpreting the divorce decree as requiring the husband to compensate the wife for the fair market value of business property apportioned to her in the equitable distribution. In re Plesich, 881 P.2d 379 (Colo. App. 1994).
(1) As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires, the term "decree" includes the term "judgment"; and, for the purposes of the tax laws of the state of Colorado or of any other jurisdiction, the term "maintenance" includes the term "alimony".
(2) Whenever any law of this state refers to or mentions divorce, annulment, or separate maintenance, said law shall be interpreted as if the words dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage, and legal separation, respectively, were substituted therefor.
(3) On and after July 1, 1993, the term "visitation" has been changed to "parenting time". It is not the intent of the general assembly to modify or change the meaning of the term "visitation" nor to alter the legal rights of a parent with respect to the child as a result of changing the term "visitation" to "parenting time".
(4) On and after February 1, 1999, the term "custody" and related terms such as "custodial" and "custodian" have been changed to "parental responsibilities". It is not the intent of the general assembly to modify or change the meaning of the term "custody" nor to alter the legal rights of any custodial parent with respect to the child as a result of changing the term "custody" to "parental responsibilities".
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 520, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-4. L. 72: p. 595, § 73. L. 73: p. 552, § 1. L. 93: (3) added, p. 576, § 5, effective July 1. L. 98: (3) amended and (4) added, p. 1376, § 1, effective February 1, 1999.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1993 act enacting subsection (3), see section 1 of chapter 165, Session Laws of Colorado 1993.
(1) This article shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states which enact it.
(2) The term "irretrievable breakdown" shall be construed as being similar to other terms having a like import in the law of other jurisdictions adopting this or a similar law.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 520, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-3.
The general assembly recognizes that it is in the best interests of the parties to a marriage in which a dissolution has been granted and in which there are children of the marriage for the parties to be able to resolve disputes that arise subsequent to the dissolution in an amicable and fair manner. The general assembly further recognizes that, in most cases, it is in the best interests of the children of the marriage to have a relationship with both parents and that, in most cases, it is the parents' right to have a relationship with their children. The general assembly emphasizes that one of the underlying purposes of this article is to mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children and the relationships between the parents and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage. The general assembly recognizes that when a marriage in which children are involved is dissolved both parties either agree to or are subject to orders which contain certain obligations and commitments. The general assembly declares that the honoring and enforcing of those obligations and commitments made by both parties is necessary to maintaining a relationship that is in the best interest of the children of the marriage. In recognition thereof the general assembly hereby declares that both parties should honor and fulfill all of the obligations and commitments made between the parties and ordered by the court.
Source: L. 88: Entire section added, p. 633, § 8, effective July 1. L. 98: Entire section amended, p. 1376, § 2, effective February 1, 1999.
Intent of act requires enforcement of child support agreement even though it does not specify a dollar amount. To allow otherwise would be to allow father to unilaterally terminate child support obligation without first obtaining an order of modification. In re Meisner, 807 P.2d 1205 (Colo. App. 1990).
(1) The Colorado rules of civil procedure apply to all proceedings under this article, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article.
(2) A proceeding for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity of marriage shall be entitled "In re the Marriage of........ and..........". A proceeding for the allocation of parental responsibilities or a support proceeding shall be entitled "In re the (Parental responsibilities concerning) (Support of)..........".
(3) The initial pleading in all proceedings under this article shall be denominated a petition. A responsive pleading shall be denominated a response. Other pleadings and all pleadings in other matters under this article shall be denominated as provided in the Colorado rules of civil procedure.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 521, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-5. L. 98: (2) amended, p. 1395, § 33, effective February 1, 1999.
Annotator's note. Since § 14-10-105 is similar to repealed § 46-1-2, C.R.S. 1963, and CSA, C. 56, § 3, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
The rules of civil procedure, where the divorce statutes are silent as to any method of procedure, govern. Myers v. Myers, 110 Colo. 412, 135 P.2d 235 (1943); Holman v. Holman, 114 Colo. 437, 165 P.2d 1015 (1946).
The rules of civil procedure apply to a divorce action, unless a contrary rule appears in the divorce statutes. Bacher v. District Court, 186 Colo. 314, 527 P.2d 56 (1974).
Service of notice in proceedings under this article is governed by the rules of civil procedure. In re Henne, 620 P.2d 62 (Colo. App. 1980).
On the question of venue in divorce actions, C.R.C.P. 98(c) is controlling, notwithstanding this article concerning divorce actions and kindred matters. People ex rel. Stanko v. Routt County Court, 110 Colo. 428, 135 P.2d 232 (1943); Brownell v. District Court ex rel. County of Larimer, 670 P.2d 762 (Colo. 1983).
For the purpose of the venue requirements in C.R.C.P. 98, the petitioner and respondent in a dissolution of marriage proceeding are the equivalent of a plaintiff and defendant, respectively. Brownell v. District Court ex rel. County of Larimer, 670 P.2d 762 (Colo. 1983).
There is no specific venue statute which would override the rules of civil procedure. Bacher v. District Court, 186 Colo. 314, 527 P.2d 56 (1974).
The rules of procedure do not govern procedure and practice in actions in divorce where they may conflict with the procedure and practice provided by the applicable statutes. Moats v. Moats, 168 Colo. 120, 450 P.2d 64 (1969).
There is no exception in this section which dispenses with the necessity of filing a motion for a new trial, or which permits the court in the exercise of its discretion to dispense with such a motion. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Order under C.R.C.P. 54(b) authorized. This section, providing that the Colorado rules of civil procedure apply to dissolution proceedings except as "otherwise specifically provided in the act", and § 14-10-120, providing that a decree of dissolution of marriage is "final" when entered, subject to the right of appeal, authorize the trial court to enter an order pursuant to C.R.C.P. 54(b) making the decree final for purposes of appeal. In re Baier, 39 Colo. App. 34, 561 P.2d 20 (1977).
Appealability of decree on entry of such order. Upon the entry of an order under C.R.C.P. 54(b) a decree of dissolution of marriage may be appealed prior to entry of permanent orders on the issues of child custody, support, and division of property. In re Baier, 39 Colo. App. 34, 561 P.2d 20 (1977).
Applied in Hubbard v. District Court, 192 Colo. 98, 556 P.2d 478 (1976); Menne v. Menne, 194 Colo. 304, 572 P.2d 472 (1977); In re Femmer, 39 Colo. App. 277, 568 P.2d 81 (1977); In re Gallegos, 41 Colo. App. 116, 580 P.2d 838 (1978); M & G Engines v. Mroch, 631 P.2d 1177 (Colo. App. 1981); In re Boyd, 643 P.2d 804 (Colo. App. 1982).
(1) (a) The district court shall enter a decree of dissolution of marriage when:
(I) The court finds that one of the parties has been domiciled in this state for ninety days next preceding the commencement of the proceeding;
(II) The court finds that the marriage is irretrievably broken; and
(III) The court finds that ninety days or more have elapsed since it acquired jurisdiction over the respondent either as the result of process pursuant to rule 4 of the Colorado rules of civil procedure or as the result of the act of the respondent in joining as copetitioner in the petition or in entering an appearance in any other manner.
(b) In connection with every decree of dissolution of marriage and to the extent of its jurisdiction to do so, the court shall consider, approve, or allocate parental responsibilities with respect to any child of the marriage, the support of any child of the marriage who is entitled to support, the maintenance of either spouse, and the disposition of property; but the entry of a decree with respect to parental responsibilities, support, maintenance, or disposition of property may be deferred by the court until a time subsequent to the decree of dissolution of marriage upon a finding that such deferral is necessary in the best interests of the parties.
(2) If a party requests a decree of legal separation rather than a decree of dissolution of marriage, the court shall grant the decree in that form unless the other party objects.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 521, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-6. L. 73: p. 552, § 2. L. 77: (1)(a)(I) and (1)(a)(II) amended and (1)(a)(III) added, p. 823, § 1, effective June 1. L. 98: (1)(b) amended, p. 1395, § 34, effective February 1, 1999.
Am. Jur.2d. See 24 Am. Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § § 2, 205, 211-214, 862, 882.
C.J.S. See 27A C.J.S., Divorce, § § 1, 7, 13-21, 96-107, 369-371, 611-617.
Law reviews. For article on residence of plaintiff in divorce action, see 25 Dicta 110 (1948). For article, "Ten Years of Domestic Relations in Colorado -- 1940-1950", see 27 Dicta 399 (1950). For comment on People v. District Court, appearing below, see 31 Dicta 118 (1954). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals", see 37 Dicta 21 (1960). For article, "One Year Review of Domestic Relations", see 37 Dicta 55 (1960). For article, "One Year Review of Domestic Relations", see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 115 (1963). For article, "Child Support Obligations After Death of the Supporting Parent", see 16 Colo. Law. 790 (1987).
Annotator's note. Since § 14-10-106 is similar to repealed § § 46-1-2 and 46-1-3, C.R.S. 1963, § § 46-1-2 and 46-1-3, CRS 53, CSA, C. 56, § § 6 and 8, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
An action for divorce is of a purely personal nature. Wood v. Parkerson, 163 Colo. 271, 430 P.2d 467 (1967); Morris v. Propst, 98 Colo. 213, 55 P.2d 944 (1936).
The power of the court in such an action to issue decrees relative to alimony, to exonerate the wife's estate from the husband's claims, and to make orders relative to the care and custody of the children is merely incidental to the primary object of changing the status or relation of the parties to each other. Wood v. Parkerson, 163 Colo. 271, 430 P.2d 467 (1967).
Such actions, in the absence of a statute providing to the contrary, abate absolutely upon the death of either party before judgment, and cannot be revived in the name of or against the representatives of the deceased party. Wood v. Parkerson, 163 Colo. 271, 430 P.2d 467 (1967).
Masters should not be appointed as a routine matter in divorce cases where the issues are not complex and the facts are not complicated. Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972).
The trial court may, for good cause shown, allow an extension of time within which to file an answer in a divorce action, even though the original time within which to file has expired. Reap v. Reap, 142 Colo. 354, 350 P.2d 1063 (1960).
Not abuse to refuse continuance when party could not appear. It is not an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse to grant a continuance at a hearing as to the question of dissolution of the marriage, where the wife could not appear at the hearing. In re Lester, 647 P.2d 688 (Colo. App. 1982).
Deferring property division. A specific finding that it is in the best interest of the parties to defer the property division is required to prevent unwarranted delays in dividing property in dissolution of marriage cases. That purpose is complied with when the parties are given time limits within which to submit their proposals for the property division. In re Rose, 40 Colo. App. 176, 574 P.2d 112 (1977).
Domicile is keystone for jurisdiction to determine the marital status, and domicile of one of the parties to the divorce action is required. Viernes v. District Court, 181 Colo. 284, 509 P.2d 306 (1973).
Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent; lack of residence cannot be waived. Watson v. Watson, 135 Colo. 296, 310 P.2d 554 (1957); McMillion v. McMillion, 31 Colo. 33, 497 P.2d 331 (1972).
Actual bona fide residence is essential and must be established with some degree of certainty. Watson v. Watson, 135 Colo. 296, 310 P.2d 554 (1957).
Unless the residence required by this section is in some manner shown, the court is without jurisdiction. People ex rel. Plunkett v. District Court, 127 Colo. 483, 258 P.2d 483 (1953).
When bona fide residence in a county is not established, the court is under a mandatory duty to refuse to hear or grant any motions whatever in an action, and its dismissal must follow. People ex rel. Plunkett v. District Court, 127 Colo. 483, 258 P.2d 483 (1953).
Under statutes pertaining to jurisdiction in divorce proceedings, the word "residence" is synonymous with the legal meaning of the word "domicile", and a person's domicile, once established, continues until he acquires legal residence or domicile elsewhere. McMillion v. McMillion, 31 Colo. App. 33, 497 P.2d 331 (1972).
Residence requires domicile. Residence for the purposes of divorce jurisdiction has always required and continues to require domicile. Viernes v. District Court, 181 Colo. 284, 509 P.2d 306 (1973).
Where husband's residency was established by an earlier proceeding as being in Colorado, that determination is res judicata and creates a presumption that he is still a resident, absent a showing that a new residency has been established. McMillion v. McMillion, 31 Colo. App. 33, 497 P.2d 331 (1972).
Where jurisdictional facts are admitted in pleadings, decree is not void for failing to recite them. Jones v. Jones, 71 Colo. 420, 207 P. 596 (1922).
Failure to allege 90-day residence immediately prior to proceeding is not fatal. Section 14-10-107 does not require that a petition for dissolution of marriage contain an allegation that the residency period includes the 90 days immediately prior to the commencement of the proceeding, and petitioner's failure to make her allegation in the words of this section was not a fatal defect. In re Alper, 33 Colo. App. 225, 517 P.2d 404 (1973).
Purpose of residency requirements was to prevent nonresidents from establishing temporary residence to obtain divorce. Cairnes v. Cairnes, 29 Colo. 260, 68 P. 233 (1902); Sedgwick v. Sedgwick, 50 Colo. 164, 114 P. 488 (1911).
An alien who made this state his home, in good faith, and had no residence elsewhere, was a citizen within the meaning of the former statute. Sedgwick v. Sedgwick, 50 Colo. 164, 114 P. 488 (1911).
Where no witness testified to plaintiff's residence, in answer to any direct question, but in effect it appeared that he had resided here for many years prior to the institution of his action, it was held a compliance with the statute. Sedgwick v. Sedgwick, 50 Colo. 164, 114 P. 488 (1911).
Where plaintiff alleged and proved more than a year's residence in Colorado before the commencement of the action, but defendant at the time of filing his cross complaint had resided in Colorado less than one year, the allegations of plaintiff's complaint vested the court with jurisdiction of plaintiff and the subject matter. Harms v. Harms, 120 Colo. 212, 209 P.2d 552 (1949).
Where prior to the trial plaintiff had registered to vote in Colorado, his automobile was registered in Colorado, he had a Colorado driver's license, and for several months prior to trial he has been engaged in part-time civilian employment in Colorado Springs in a field in which he intended to continue on his retirement, and plaintiff had for four years been present in Colorado in military service, the foregoing facts formed a sound basis for the finding of the trial judge that the court had jurisdiction based on residence. Mulhollen v. Mulhollen, 145 Colo. 479, 358 P.2d 887 (1961).
Mere presence in state as member of armed forces insufficient to confer jurisdiction but after 90 days domicile may be established. A serviceman may establish a Colorado domicile to support jurisdiction for a Colorado court to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage after he has been stationed in Colorado for 90 days. Viernes v. District Court, 181 Colo. 284, 509 P.2d 306 (1973).
The district courts are invested by the statute with jurisdiction in this class of actions. Pleyte v. Pleyte, 1 Colo. App. 70, 28 P. 23 (1891).
Only a final decree of divorce in a foreign state constitutes a bar to a divorce action in Colorado. In re Quay, 647 P.2d 693 (Colo. App. 1982).
Formerly, where a complaint alleged that the parties were residents of the state of Colorado, and that defendant had been guilty of acts of mental cruelty committed within the state of Colorado, and prayed for divorce alleging sufficient facts to give the court jurisdiction. Raygor v. Raygor, 29 Colo. App. 453, 485 P.2d 930 (1971).
Service by publication insufficient for jurisdiction in custody issue. Service by publication pursuant to the uniform act is not sufficient to vest a trial court with jurisdiction to resolve a custody issue. In re Blair, 42 Colo. App. 270, 592 P.2d 1354 (1979).
A trial court which in fact lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot acquire jurisdiction even though the parties expressly or impliedly consent thereto. Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 370 P.2d 757 (1962).
The jurisdiction of the district court of Adams county, arising from the filing and disposition of the divorce action would not preclude the district court of the city and county of Denver from proceeding pursuant to the reciprocal support act when the mother and children had moved to Nevada. Scheer v. District Court, 147 Colo. 265, 363 P.2d 1059 (1961).
A district court is without jurisdiction to hear a divorce action involving two members of a reservation Indian tribe. Whyte v. District Court, 140 Colo. 334, 346 P.2d 1012 (1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 829, 80 S. Ct. 1600, 4 L. Ed.2d 1524 (1960).
Where the trial court had jurisdiction to divide property at the time of entry of a final decree of divorce, but did not do so, nor then reserve the matter for further consideration, it lost jurisdiction to thereafter make a valid division of such property. Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 370 P.2d 757 (1962); Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Colo. 486, 423 P.2d 315 (1967).
Trial court, which had personal jurisdiction over husband but lacked the authority to divide the husband's military pension as marital property, did not retain jurisdiction to divide the pension at a later date. Even though final decree provided that trial court had continuing jurisdiction over the action and that the wife would remain entitled to any and all military benefits, the court did not have the authority to divide military pension as a result of subsequent case law declaring such pensions to be marital property. Language in final decree refers only to the court's continuing authority to divide property as such court had on the date of the final decree. In Re Booker, 833 P.2d 734 (Colo. 1992).
Federal act specifying whether the court has jurisdiction over a military member's pension preempts state rules of procedure governing jurisdiction. In Re Booker, 833 P.2d 734 (Colo. 1992).
Jurisdiction retained until all matters resolved. A district court which properly acquires jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter in a dissolution action retains that jurisdiction until all matters arising out of the litigation are resolved. Gonzales v. District Court, 629 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1981).
Jurisdiction does not extend to resolution of all financial issues. Jurisdiction to grant a divorce does not automatically include the right to resolve all financial issues between the parties to the marriage. Viernes v. District Court, 181 Colo. 284, 509 P.2d 306 (1973).
Where it appears from a record and from the conduct of counsel that the parties agreed that a court would defer determination of permanent alimony, property settlement, and related matters until after the entry of a final decree. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 137 Colo. 74, 323 P.2d 892 (1958).
Although, resumption of marital relations by the parties to a divorce action affords good grounds for a dismissal thereof, it does not serve to divest the court of jurisdiction. Stockham v. Stockham, 145 Colo. 376, 358 P.2d 1026 (1961).
Husband's motion to abate and reduce child support amounted to consent to the court's personal jurisdiction. In Re Booker, 833 P.2d 734 (Colo. 1992).
Decree of dissolution entered after a spouse's death is void for lack of jurisdiction, and the dissolution action is abated. In Re Connell, 870 P.2d 632 (Colo. App. 1994).
This section mandates that bifurcation of dissolution proceedings may occur only if the district court finds that "such a deferral is necessary in the best interest of the parties" and should only be considered in exceptional cases. Estate of Burford v. Burford, 935 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1997).
A decree of dissolution when entered by the district court is final to dissolve the marriage even when the district court refuses to certify the decree as a final judgment appealable under C.R.C.P. 54 (b). Estate of Burford v. Burford, 935 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1997).
(1) All proceedings under this article shall be commenced in the manner provided by the Colorado rules of civil procedure.
(2) The petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation shall allege that the marriage is irretrievably broken and shall set forth:
(a) The residence of each party and the length of residence in this state;
(b) The date and place of the marriage;
(c) The date on which the parties separated;
(d) The names, ages, and addresses of any living children of the marriage and whether the wife is pregnant;
(e) Any arrangements as to the allocation of parental responsibilities with respect to the children of the marriage and support of the children and the maintenance of a spouse;
(g) A written acknowledgment by the petitioner and the co-petitioner, if any, that he or she has received a copy of, has read, and understands the terms of the automatic temporary injunction required by paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section.
(3) Either or both parties to the marriage may initiate the proceeding. In addition, a legal guardian, with court approval pursuant to section 15-14-315.5, C.R.S., or a conservator, with court approval pursuant to section 15-14-425.5, C.R.S., may initiate the proceeding. If a legal guardian or conservator initiates the proceeding, the legal guardian or conservator shall receive notice in the same manner as the parties to the proceeding.
(4) (a) Upon the commencement of a proceeding by one of the parties, or by a legal guardian or conservator of one of the parties, the other party shall be personally served in the manner provided by the Colorado rules of civil procedure, and he or she may file a response in accordance with such rules; except that, upon motion verified by the oath of the party commencing the proceeding or of someone in his or her behalf for an order of publication stating the facts authorizing such service, and showing the efforts, if any, that have been made to obtain personal service within this state, and giving the address or last-known address of each person to be served or stating that his or her address and last-known address are unknown, the court shall hear the motion ex parte and, if satisfied that due diligence has been used to obtain personal service within this state or that efforts to obtain the same would have been to no avail, shall order one publication of a consolidated notice in a newspaper published or having general circulation in the county in which the proceeding is filed, notwithstanding the provisions of article 70 of title 24, C.R.S. A consolidated notice shall be published at least once during a calendar month and shall list the proceedings filed subsequent to those named in the previously published consolidated notice, stating as to each proceeding the names of the parties, the action number, the nature of the action, that a copy of the petition and summons may be obtained from the clerk of the court during regular business hours, and that default judgment may be entered against that party upon whom service is made by such notice if he or she fails to appear or file a response within thirty days after the date of publication. Costs of publication of a consolidated notice may be assessed pro rata to each of the proceedings named in the notice; except that, if a party is indigent or otherwise unable to pay such publication costs, the costs shall be paid by the court from funds appropriated for the purpose. Service shall be complete upon such publication, and a response or appearance by the party served by publication under this subsection (4) shall be made within thirty days thereafter, or default judgment may be entered. No later than the day of publication, the clerk of the court shall also post for thirty consecutive days a copy of the process on a bulletin board in his or her office, and shall mail a copy of the process to the other party at his or her last-known address, and shall place in the file of the proceeding his or her certificate of posting and mailing. Proof of publication of the consolidated notice shall be by placing in the file a copy of the affidavit of publication, certified by the clerk of the court to be a true and correct copy of the original affidavit on file in the clerk's office.
(b) (I) Upon the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation by the petitioner or copetitioner or by a legal guardian or conservator on behalf of one of the parties and upon personal service of the petition and summons on the respondent or upon waiver and acceptance of service by the respondent, a temporary injunction shall be in effect against both parties until the final decree is entered or the petition is dismissed or until further order of the court:
(A) Restraining both parties from transferring, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing of, without the consent of the other party or an order of the court, any marital property, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life and requiring each party to notify the other party of any proposed extraordinary expenditures and to account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures made after the injunction is in effect;
(B) Enjoining both parties from molesting or disturbing the peace of the other party;
(C) Restraining both parties from removing the minor child or children of the parties, if any, from the state without the consent of the other party or an order of the court; and
(D) Restraining both parties, without at least fourteen days' advance notification and the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, from canceling, modifying, terminating, or allowing to lapse for nonpayment of premiums, any policy of health insurance, homeowner's or renter's insurance, or automobile insurance that provides coverage to either of the parties or the minor children or any policy of life insurance that names either of the parties or the minor children as a beneficiary.
(II) The provisions of the injunction shall be printed upon the summons and the petition and the injunction shall become an order of the court upon fulfillment of the requirements of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b). However, nothing in this paragraph (b) shall preclude either party from applying to the court for further temporary orders, an expanded temporary injunction, or modification or revocation under section 14-10-108.
(4.1) With regard to the automatic, temporary injunction that becomes effective in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section when a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation is filed and served, whenever there is exhibited by the respondent to any duly authorized peace officer, level I, as defined in section 18-1-901, C.R.S., or sheriff a copy of the petition and summons duly filed and issued pursuant to this section, or, in the case of the petitioner, a copy of the petition and summons duly filed and issued pursuant to this section, together with a certified copy of the affidavit of service of process or a certified copy of the waiver and acceptance of service, and the peace officer, level I, as defined in section 18-1-901, C.R.S., or sheriff has cause to believe that a violation of that part of the automatic, temporary injunction which enjoins both parties from molesting the other party has occurred, such peace officer, level I, as defined in section 18-1-901, C.R.S., or sheriff shall use every reasonable means to enforce that part of the injunction against the petitioner or respondent. A peace officer shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for his action pursuant to this subsection (4.1) if his action is in good faith and without malice.
(5) Defenses to divorce and legal separation existing prior to January 1, 1972, including but not limited to condonation, connivance, collusion, recrimination, insanity, and lapse of time, are hereby abolished.
(6) All issues raised by these proceedings shall be resolved by the court sitting without a jury.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 521, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-7. L. 72: p. 296, § 1. L. 83: (4) amended, p. 641, § 1, effective July 1. L. 86: (4.1) added, p. 716, § 1, effective April 29. L. 87: (4.1) amended, p. 1578, § 21, effective July 10. L. 98: (2)(e) amended, p. 1395, § 35, effective February 1, 1999. L. 99: (2)(g) and (4)(b)(I)(D) added and (4)(b)(I)(B), (4)(b)(I)(C), and (4)(b)(II) amended, p. 1059, § § 1, 2, effective June 1; (3), (4)(a), and IP(4)(b)(I) amended, p. 465, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2000: (3) amended, p. 1833, § 7, effective January 1, 2001.
Editor's note: Section 7 of chapter 368, Session Laws of Colorado 2000, provides that the act amending subsection (3) applies to appointments of guardians or conservators on or after January 1, 2001.
Am. Jur.2d. See 24 Am. Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § § 196, 200, 243-247, 249, 266, 267, 282-294.
C.J.S. See 27A C.J.S., Divorce, § § 104-110, 120-126, 143-161.
Law reviews. For article, "Expediting Court Procedure", see 10 Dicta 113 (1933). For an article on divorce, see 16 Dicta 107 (1939). For article, "Comments on the Rules of Civil Procedure", see 22 Dicta 154 (1945). For article, "The Doctrine of Recrimination in Divorce Proceedings", see 21 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 407 (1949). For article, "Forms Committee Presents Standard Pleading Samples to be Used in Divorce Litigation", see 29 Dicta 94 (1952). For article, "One Year Review of Criminal Law and Procedure", see 36 Dicta 34 (1959). For comment on Reed v. Reed, appearing below, see 31 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 240 (1959). For article, "Legislative Update", see 12 Colo. Law. 1257 (1983). For article, "Recovering the Parentally Kidnapped Child", see 12 Colo. Law. 1798 (1983). For article, "Injunctive Remedies for Interpersonal Violence", see 18 Colo. Law. 1743 (1989).
Annotator's note. Cases relevant to § 14-10-107 decided prior to its earliest source, L. 71, p. 521, § 1, have been included in the annotations to this section.
A court having properly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to a divorce action, including minor children, is not at liberty to thereafter divest itself of such jurisdiction to the prejudice of interested parties. Cartier v. Cartier, 94 Colo. 157, 28 P.2d 1010 (1934).
In divorce proceedings, the parties are the husband and wife, and the jurisdiction of the divorce court is exercised as between husband and wife. Ross v. Ross, 89 Colo. 536, 5 P.2d 246 (1931).
There are, in reality, three parties to every divorce action: The plaintiff, the defendant, and the state. Reed v. Reed, 138 Colo. 74, 329 P.2d 633 (1958).
A wife or husband may well be entitled to a divorce, but whether or not she or he will exercise that right is optional with her or him. Faith v. Faith, 128 Colo. 483, 261 P.2d 225 (1953).
The policy of the court should be to discourage, rather than encourage, divorces. Faith v. Faith, 128 Colo. 483, 261 P.2d 225 (1953).
When a plaintiff moves to dismiss a divorce action, it is the duty of a trial court to dismiss the case. McClanahan v. County Court, 136 Colo. 426, 318 P.2d 599 (1957).
The court cannot compel one to take a divorce when he does not desire to have one. Faith v. Faith, 128 Colo. 483, 261 P.2d 225 (1953).
Due process notice and hearing requirements met. The basic requirements of the due process clause of our constitution are that no person be deprived of valuable rights without adequate notice and opportunity for hearing, and the divorce statute does make provision for such notice and hearing before the termination of the marriage. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Action for dissolution of marriage is proceeding in rem. In re Ramsey, 34 Colo. App. 338, 526 P.2d 319 (1974).
Scope of court's jurisdiction over nonresident respondent is established by this section. In re Ramsey, 34 Colo. App. 338, 526 P.2d 319 (1974).
Service by publication insufficient for jurisdiction in custody issue. Service by publication pursuant to the uniform act is not sufficient to vest a trial court with jurisdiction to resolve a custody issue. In re Blair, 42 Colo. App. 270, 592 P.2d 1354 (1979).
Default judgment would be proper after a member of the armed services entered an appearance and asserted cross claims. Federal Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act is to protect members of the military from having default judgments entered against them without their notice of the pendency of the action. It does not prevent entry of such a judgment when there has been notice of the pendency of the action and the member has had adequate time to defend the action. In re Custody of Nugent, 955 P.2d 584 (Colo. App. 1997).
In an action for divorce it is sufficient compliance with the rules of civil procedure if a court makes findings on the material and ultimate facts. Lininger v. Lininger, 138 Colo. 338, 333 P.2d 625 (1958).
Maintenance must be requested in petition. Under the uniform act, maintenance must be requested in the petition for dissolution. In re Boyd, 643 P.2d 804 (Colo. App. 1982).
All the provisions of the code which are applicable shall control in the trial and disposition of divorce cases, except as otherwise provided in the divorce act itself, either expressly or by necessary implication. People ex rel. Lackey v. District Court, 30 Colo. 123, 69 P. 597 (1902); Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 27 Colo. 380, 61 P. 225 (1900).
The former defense of condonation was in the nature of confession and avoidance. Cochran v. Cochran, 164 Colo. 99, 432 P.2d 752 (1967).
Condoned adultery was not a bar to a divorce, because it was not a ground for divorce. Jones v. Jones, 71 Colo. 420, 207 P. 596 (1922).
If there was any collusion or fraud between the parties, the court would see to it that a decree for divorce is not entered. Reed v. Reed, 138 Colo. 74, 329 P.2d 633 (1958).
Where each party was at fault, a court could not grant relief to either party. Morgan v. Morgan, 139 Colo. 545, 340 P.2d 1060 (1959).
Formerly, the defendant in an action for divorce could set up any matter by way of cross-complaint that would defeat the plaintiff's action. Cupples v. Cupples, 33 Colo. 449, 80 P. 1039 (1905).
It was not necessary, in order to entitle the defendant to set up matters by way of cross-complaint, in bar of the plaintiff's action, that the defendant was seeking a divorce. Cupples v. Cupples, 33 Colo. 449, 80 P. 1039 (1905).
Where a cross-complaint, defective because it omitted a jurisdictional averment so that no divorce could be awarded thereon to the defendant, must have been investigated, and could serve to defeat the action. Cupples v. Cupples, 33 Colo. 449, 80 P. 1039 (1905); Garver v. Garver, 52 Colo. 227, 121 P. 165 (1911).
Decedent's naming of her brother as the payable-on-death beneficiary of her accounts and joint accounts of her and her husband did not amount to an encumbrance of marital property. Estate of Westfall v. Westfall, 942 P.2d 1227 (Colo. App. 1996).
Changing accounts from multi-party to sole accounts before divorce did not affect the other spouse's rights since the accounts remained part of the marital estate and either party had a legal right to deplete the joint accounts. Estate of Westfall v. Westfall, 942 P.2d 1227 (Colo. App. 1996).
It was error to receive a verdict which failed to respond to counter charge of violation of marital duties pleaded in answer. Garver v. Garver, 52 Colo. 227, 121 P. 165 (1911).
Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant in a divorce action within the reach of the state's jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate substituted service. In re Petition of Kraudel v. Benner, 148 Colo. 525, 366 P.2d 667 (1961).
Its adequacy so far as due process is concerned is dependent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give him actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, if it is, the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice implicit in due process are satisfied. In re Petition of Kraudel v. Benner, 148 Colo. 525, 366 P.2d 667 (1961).
Fraud relative to service by publication operates to void a divorce decree. In re Wilson, 653 P.2d 85 (Colo. App. 1982).
A decree of divorce based upon constructive service is void unless the record shows a strict compliance with all the statutory requirements. Roberts v. Roberts, 3 Colo. App. 6, 31 P. 941 (1892).
The record must show a compliance with the statute respecting the mailing of a copy of the summons to the defendant to justify the entry of a judgment. Roberts v. Roberts, 3 Colo. App. 6, 31 P. 941 (1892).
Parol proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the pendency of the action was not considered on the hearing of his motion to set aside the judgment, because of the failure to mail him a copy of the summons, as required by law. Roberts v. Roberts, 3 Colo. App. 6, 31 P. 941 (1892).
Where upon a service of a summons in a divorce suit in which the defendant, if served within the county in which the action was pending, was required to appear and answer the complaint within 20 days thereafter, the court was not authorized to proceed to a judgment if defendant failed to comply with such command, for it was in direct conflict with the mandatory provision which gives a defendant 30 days to appear and answer in such circumstances. Mottschall v. Mottschall, 31 Colo. 260, 72 P. 1053 (1903).
Where plaintiff had removed her child to a foreign country, a motion by her attorney for leave to withdraw as her counsel was properly denied, since such withdrawal would make service of process impossible and deprive the trial court of authority to make proper orders. Holland v. Holland, 150 Colo. 442, 373 P.2d 523 (1962).
Failure to allege 90-day residency immediately prior to proceeding not fatal. This section does not require that a petition for dissolution of marriage contain an allegation that the residency period includes the 90 days immediately prior to the commencement of the proceeding, and petitioner's failure to make her allegation in the words of section 14-10-106 was not a fatal defect. In re Alper, 33 Colo. App. 225, 517 P.2d 404 (1973).
Theory of mutual mistake not waived by failure to raise issue in reply to petition. In a dispute over a separation agreement, a theory of mutual mistake is not waived by failure to raise the issue in the reply to the petition for dissolution of marriage, since no reply is required and averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required shall be taken as denied or avoided. In re Deines, 44 Colo. App. 98, 608 P.2d 375 (1980).
Withdrawal of marital property after dissolution proceeding commenced. In determining the total value of the marital property, trial court did not err in including the $45,000 husband, had withdrawn from the fund after the dissolution proceeding had commenced since husband, who had not obtained an order of the court or consent of his wife before using the money, failed to show that the withdrawal was done either in the usual course of business or was for the necessities of life. In re Meisner, 715 P.2d 1273 (Colo. App. 1985).
Trial court properly credited husband with the amount of funds existing prior to wife's sale of stock shares when wife cashed out shares after entry of the automatic temporary injunction. Wife's argument that the parties routinely cashed out shares to meet living expenses was rejected by the court as a rationale for not including the amount she cashed out in the division of marital shares, since the prior sales of stock took place inconsistently and was not used as income on a monthly basis. In re Huston, 967 P.2d 181 (Colo. App. 1998).
(1) The attorney for the county department of social services may file an entry of appearance on behalf of the department in any proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation under this article for purposes of establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support and medical support of a child on whose behalf the custodian of said child is receiving support enforcement services pursuant to section 26-13-106, C.R.S., and for purposes of establishing and enforcing reimbursement of payments for aid to families with dependent children.
(2) The county department of social services, upon the filing of the entry of appearance described in subsection (1) of this section or upon the filing of a legal pleading to establish, modify, or enforce the support obligation, shall be from that date forward, without leave or order of court, a third-party intervenor in the action for the purposes outlined in subsection (1) of this section without the necessity of filing a motion to intervene.
Source: L. 89: Entire section added, p. 792, § 13, effective July 1. L. 90: Entire section amended, p. 889, § 8, effective July 1.
When filing a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, a petition in support or proceedings for the allocation of parental responsibilities with respect to the children of the marriage, or any other matter pursuant to this article with the court, if the parties have joint legal responsibility for a child for whom the petition seeks an order of child support, the parties shall be required to indicate on a form prepared by the court whether or not the parties or the dependent children of the parties have received within the last five years or are currently receiving benefits or public assistance from either the state department of human services or county department of social services. If the parties indicate that they have received such benefits or assistance, the court shall inform the appropriate delegate child support enforcement unit so that the unit can determine whether any support enforcement services are required. There shall be no penalty for failure to report as specified in this section.
Source: L. 92: Entire section added, p. 202, § 8, effective August 1. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 1558, § 6, effective September 1. L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 2644, § 106, effective July 1. L. 98: Entire section amended, p. 1396, § 36, effective February 1, 1999.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994.
(1) When filing a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation pursuant to this article, the filing party shall have a duty to disclose to the court the existence of any prior temporary or permanent restraining orders and civil protection orders to prevent domestic abuse issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S., any mandatory restraining order and protection orders issued pursuant to section 18-1-1001, C.R.S., and any emergency protection orders issued pursuant to section 13-14-103, C.R.S., entered against either party by any court within two years prior to the filing of the petition of dissolution of marriage or legal separation. The disclosure required pursuant to this section shall address the subject matter of the previous restraining, civil protection, or emergency protection orders, including the case number and jurisdiction issuing such orders.
(2) After the filing of the petition, the court shall advise the parties concerning domestic violence services and potential financial resources that may be available and shall strongly encourage the parties to obtain such services for their children, in appropriate cases. If the parties' children participate in such services, the court shall apportion the costs of such services between the parties as it deems appropriate.
(3) The parties to a domestic relations petition filed pursuant to this article shall receive information concerning domestic violence services and potential financial resources that may be available.
Source: L. 95: Entire section added, p. 83, § 1, effective July 1. L. 99: Entire section amended, p. 502, § 9, effective July 1. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 978, § 1, effective August 8. L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 554, § 10, effective July 1. L. 2005: (1) amended, p. 764, § 22, effective June 1.
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, the allocation of parental responsibilities, or declaration of invalidity of marriage or a proceeding for disposition of property, maintenance, or support following dissolution of the marriage, either party may move for temporary payment of debts, use of property, maintenance, parental responsibilities, support of a child of the marriage entitled to support, or payment of attorney fees. The motion may be supported by an affidavit setting forth the factual basis for the motion and the amounts requested.
(1.5) The court may consider the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child, with particular reference to the factors specified in section 14-10-124 (1.5).
(2) As a part of a motion of such temporary orders or by an independent motion accompanied by an affidavit, either party may request the court to issue a temporary order:
(a) Restraining any party from transferring, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, and, if so restrained, requiring him to notify the moving party of any proposed extraordinary expenditures and to account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures made after the order is issued;
(b) Enjoining a party from molesting or disturbing the peace of the other party or of any child;
(c) Excluding a party from the family home or from the home of the other party upon a showing that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result.
(2.3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 553, § 4, effective July 1, 2004.)
(2.5) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 553, § 4, effective July 1, 2004.)
(3) A party to an action filed pursuant to this article may seek, and the court may issue, a temporary or permanent protection order pursuant to the provisions of section 13-14-102, C.R.S.
(4) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 553, § 4, effective July 1, 2004.)
(5) A temporary order or temporary injunction:
(a) Does not prejudice the rights of the parties or the child which are to be adjudicated at subsequent hearings in the proceeding;
(b) May be revoked or modified prior to final decree on a showing by affidavit of the facts necessary to revocation or modification of a final decree under section 14-10-122; and
(c) Terminates when the final decree is entered, unless continued by the court for good cause to a date certain, or when the petition for dissolution or legal separation is voluntarily dismissed.
(6) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 553, § 4, effective July 1, 2004.)
(7) At the time a protection order is requested pursuant to section 13-14-102, C.R.S., the court shall inquire about, and the requesting party and such party's attorney shall have an independent duty to disclose, knowledge such party and such party's attorney may have concerning the existence of any prior protection orders or restraining orders of any court addressing in whole or in part the subject matter of the requested protection order.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 522, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-8. L. 73: pp. 553, 555, § § 3, 12. L. 81: (6) added, p. 903, § 1, effective May 13. L. 83: (1) amended, p. 644, § 1, effective April 26; (1.5) added, p. 645, § 1, effective June 10. L. 87: (1.5) amended, p. 575, § 4, effective July 1. L. 94: (2.5) and (7) added and (3) amended, p. 2008, § 4, effective January 1, 1995. L. 98: (2.3) added and (3) amended, p. 245, § 4, effective April 13; (1) and (2.5) amended, p. 1396, § 37, effective February 1, 1999. L. 99: (2.3) amended, p. 501, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2000: (1.5) amended, p. 1844, § 24, effective August 2. L. 2003: (2.3), (2.5), (3), (6), and (7) amended, p. 1010, § 14, effective July 1. L. 2004: IP(2), (2.3), (2.5), (3), (4), (6), and (7) amended, p. 553, § 4, effective July 1.
Editor's note: Subsection (1.5) was contained in a 2000 act that was passed without a safety clause. For further explanation concerning the effective date, see page vii of this volume.
Am. Jur.2d. See 24 Am. Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § § 652-656, 1047-1050.
C.J.S. See 27A C.J.S., Divorce, § § 315-342.
Law reviews. For article, "Legislative Update", see 12 Colo. Law. 1257 (1983).
Annotator's note. Since § 14-10-108 is similar to repealed § 46-1-5, C.R.S. 1963, § 46-1-5, CRS 53, CSA, C. 56, § 8, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
The general rule is that courts of equity should and will in a proper case enjoin a party to a divorce or separate maintenance action from proceeding in an annulment suit in a foreign jurisdiction. Hayutin v. Hayutin, 152 Colo. 261, 381 P.2d 272 (1963).
Evidence of extreme circumstances necessitating sale of co-owned property. If there is evidence of extreme circumstances that co-owned property needs to be sold to preserve equities therein, a court may decree a sale of the property prior to a final determination of the merits of the dissolution action. In re Gavend, 781 P.2d 161 (Colo. App. 1989).
Best interest standard, and not the endangerment standard, was properly applied to award father residential care despite mother's award of temporary custody, where awarding father residential custody of the children was not abuse of discretion and record supported findings. In re Monteil, 960 P.2d 717 (Colo. App. 1998).
Applied in In re Westlake, 674 P.2d 1386 (Colo. App. 1983).
Law reviews. For article, "Attorney Fees at Temporary Orders: Reality or Illusion?", see 24 Colo. Law. 2185 (1995).
An order granting a temporary change of custody following an ex parte hearing with no notice to the mother denied her due process where no evidence was presented and no finding was made that irreparable injury would result if no order were issued until the time for responding had elapsed. Olson v. Priest, 193 Colo. 222, 564 P.2d 122 (1977).
Court lost jurisdiction to enforce order. When an order dismissing a marriage dissolution action was signed, the court was divested of any further jurisdiction in that action and had no jurisdiction to hold husband in contempt for failing to pay support required by temporary order which was entered in that action. Hill v. District Court, 189 Colo. 356, 540 P.2d 1079 (1975).
The purpose of temporary alimony is to allow a wife to live in her accustomed manner during pendency of the action and to provide her with means to properly litigate the controversy, and is not definitive of her entitlement to support under permanent orders. MacReynolds v. MacReynolds, 29 Colo. App. 267, 482 P.2d 407 (1971); Bieler v. Bieler, 130 Colo. 17, 272 P.2d 636 (1954).
If she possesses independent means sufficient for these purposes the allowances should not be granted; however, she is not required first to impair the capital of her separate estate. Bieler v. Bieler, 130 Colo. 17, 272 P.2d 636 (1954).
The allowance of temporary alimony is dependent upon the existence of the marriage relation, and all necessary facts to establish such relation must be made to appear at least prima facie before such allowance is made by the court, but where a prima facie case is established alimony should be awarded. Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 29 Colo. 295, 68 P. 237 (1902).
In an action for divorce where it is clear upon the admitted facts that the marriage alleged in the complaint is void in law, or where the preponderance of the evidence tends to show that there was never a marriage in fact, temporary alimony should not be awarded, and if awarded will be set aside on review. Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 29 Colo. 295, 68 P. 237 (1902).
It appears that in a divorce proceeding, the right to apply for alimony pendente lite is dependent upon the previous filing of a complaint for a divorce, and then the application may be made to, and acted upon, by the court in term time, or by the judge in vacation. Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 14 Colo. App. 127, 59 P. 411 (1899).
The allowance to be made for temporary alimony, attorney fees, and suit money is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless that discretion has been abused the order of allowance will not be disturbed on review. Miller v. Miller, 79 Colo. 609, 247 P. 567 (1926); Cairnes v. Cairnes, 29 Colo. 260, 68 P. 233 (1902).
In a divorce suit where the wife was in indigent circumstances and the husband was a man of large means, an allowance of $50 per month as temporary alimony, $250 attorney fees, and $25 suit money was not excessive, and was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 29 Colo. 295, 68 P. 237 (1902).
In determining the amount of temporary alimony to be allowed, the ability of the husband is an element to be considered, and the same element must necessarily be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of permanent alimony. Fahey v. Fahey, 43 Colo. 354, 96 P. 251 (1908).
If the evidence as to the ability of the husband to pay temporary alimony in a divorce action is conflicting, the order of the trial court based thereon is not reviewable. Miller v. Miller, 79 Colo. 609, 247 P. 567 (1926).
An award of temporary alimony may be modified by the supreme court. Miller v. Miller, 79 Colo. 609, 247 P. 567 (1926).
No appeal from temporary orders that have terminated due to entry of permanent orders. In re Jaeger, 883 P.2d 577 (Colo. App. 1994).
Temporary alimony awarded a wife cannot be modified except upon motion and sufficient showing in support thereof; thus, where no motion was made respecting the alimony, it was an abuse of discretion for the court to suspend the order for temporary alimony at a hearing on a citation for the husband to show cause why he was not in contempt of court for failure to pay alimony Wright v. Wright, 122 Colo. 179, 220 P.2d 881 (1950).
The question whether an order for temporary alimony should be modified is also within the discretion of the court. Miller v. Miller, 79 Colo. 609, 247 P. 567 (1926).
Orders resolving child support issue are final. In dissolution proceedings, orders which resolve the issue of child support, even on a temporary basis, are final for purposes of review. In re Henne, 620 P.2d 62 (Colo. App. 1980).
"Final decree", as used in subsection 14-10-108 (5)(c), is not limited to a final decree of dissolution, but may also include a final order concerning child support. In re Price, 727 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1986); In re Nussbeck, 899 P.2d 347 (Colo. App. 1995), rev' d on other grounds, 974 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1999).
Where court continued determination of permanent child support to time subsequent to entry of decree of dissolution, temporary child support order was not terminated on date of dissolution by virtue of statute terminating temporary order or temporary injunction when final decree is entered. In re Price, 727 P.2d. 1073 (Colo. 1986).
Temporary orders as to maintenance are reviewable as a final judgment even if there has not been a final judgment in the form of a decree of dissolution. In re Nussbeck, 899 P.2d 347 (Colo. App. 1995), rev' d on other grounds, 974 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1999).
If the decree of dissolution leaves the issue of maintenance to be resolved later, an order of temporary maintenance is not terminated on the date of dissolution by virtue of subsection (5)(c). When possible, however, at the time the decree is entered, the court should set a definite date for consideration of permanent orders concerning maintenance. In re Nussbeck, 899 P.2d 347 (Colo. App. 1995), rev' d on other grounds, 974 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1999).
A request for a temporary award includes attorney fees and related litigation expenses. In re Mockelmann, 944 P.2d 670 (Colo. App. 1997).
An award of attorney fees is a final judgment subject to appellate review as it establishes a financial right and obligation of the parties until the entry of permanent orders. A temporary award of attorney fees is based upon the same underlying premise as a temporary award of maintenance or child support in that it concerns the immediate financial need of the party to whom the attorney fees are awarded. In re Mockelmann, 944 P.2d 670 (Colo. App. 1997).
The duty to pay maintenance is independent and is not limited or specifically tied to the entry of a decree of dissolution. To allow a party to terminate his or her maintenance payments when a decree of dissolution is entered that is mute on the issue of maintenance would disturb the status quo, frustrate a central purpose of the statute, and allow evasion of an important stabilizing aspect of the dissolution process. In re Nussbeck, 899 P.2d 347 (Colo. App. 1995), rev' d on other grounds, 974 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1999).
Where a husband, plaintiff in a divorce suit, is unable to make reasonable provision for his wife during the pendency of the suit, the suit should be abated until he is able to do so. Cairnes v. Cairnes, 29 Colo. 260, 68 P. 233 (1902).
Where a wife, defendant in a divorce suit, is a nonresident of the state and desires to come to Colorado to defend the suit, she should be given an opportunity to do so and the plaintiff should be required to deposit in court a sufficient sum to pay to the state the expenses of the wife which shall be paid to her upon her arrival, within a reasonable time, with such additional sum as may be necessary to properly defend the suit. Cairnes v. Cairnes, 29 Colo. 260, 68 P. 233 (1902).
Where a trial court denies motions of both parties with respect to temporary alimony pending trial on the merits, a writ of error to review such action is premature. Hizel v. Hizel, 132 Colo. 379, 288 P.2d 354 (1955).
Since temporary orders are not in any way res judicata as to matters properly the subject of permanent order, a showing of change of circumstances is not an essential element for the trial court's consideration in its establishment of permanent alimony. MacReynolds v. MacReynolds, 29 Colo. App. 267, 482 P.2d 407 (1971).
There is no enforceable temporary order where the claim for spousal maintenance is based on a referee's recommendation and where the transcript is not signed and no separate order of the court is entered. In re Burke, 680 P.2d 1338 (Colo. App. 1984).
Formerly, an execution was authorized on an order for temporary alimony. Paul v. Marty, 72 Colo. 399, 211 P. 667 (1922); Daniels v. Daniels, 9 Colo. 133, 10 P. 657 (1886).
Restraining orders should not be issued in divorce actions except in circumstances of actual emergency, and where it is clearly established that grounds exist for granting such extraordinary remedy. Simpson v. Simpson, 151 Colo. 88, 376 P.2d 55 (1962).
It is an unusual situation in which an order on one spouse to refrain from transferring property is inadequate to afford needed protection to the other who seeks to maintain the status quo pending a hearing on notice. Simpson v. Simpson, 151 Colo. 88, 376 P.2d 55 (1962).
The right of the husband in a divorce action to manage his property and carry on his business in due course is fundamental and should not be interfered with or suspended by the issuance of ex parte restraining orders without notice upon persons with whom he transacts business, except upon a clear showing of emergency and a need therefor. Simpson v. Simpson, 151 Colo. 88, 376 P.2d 55 (1962).
The practice of bringing in third parties as defendants in a divorce action and issuing restraining orders against them without notice is not to be encouraged, it being only under extraordinary circumstances that such persons engaged in legitimate business transactions with one of the parties to the divorce action and not involved in their marital difficulties may be restrained or enjoined from continuing business activities with one of the spouses involved. Simpson v. Simpson, 151 Colo. 88, 376 P.2d 55 (1962).
Any reasons justifying permanent injunctive relief in dissolution of marriage proceeding must arise from factors independent of those with which the trial court is empowered to deal in a dissolution proceeding. In re Davis, 44 Colo. App. 355, 618 P.2d 692 (1980).
The duties of peace officers enforcing orders issued pursuant to section 14-10-107 or 14-10-108 shall be in accordance with section 18-6-803.5, C.R.S., and any rules adopted by the Colorado supreme court pursuant to said section.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 523, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-9. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 176, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 2009, § 5, effective January 1, 1995.
Cross references: For civil contempt, see Rule 107, C.R.C.P.
Am. Jur.2d. See 24 Am. Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § § 295-300.
(1) If both of the parties by petition or otherwise have stated under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken or one of the parties has so stated and the other has not denied it, there is a presumption of such fact, and, unless controverted by evidence, the court shall, after hearing, make a finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken.
(2) If one of the parties has denied under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition and the prospect of reconciliation, and shall:
(a) Make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken; or
(b) Continue the matter for further hearing not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days later, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached on the court's calendar, and may suggest to the parties that they seek counseling. At the adjourned hearing, the court shall make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 523, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-10.
Cross references: For marriage counseling, see article 12 of this title.
Am. Jur.2d. See 24 Am. Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § § 343, 354, 355, 382, 383.
C.J.S. See 27A C.J.S., Divorce, § § 13-15, 18, 163.
Law reviews. For article, "Is Residence of the Plaintiff, in Colorado, Necessary to Support a Divorce Action Based on Cruelty Within the State, If Defendant Is a Resident of Colorado?", see 24 Dicta 110 (1947). For article, "When the State Had an Interest in Marriage: Colorado's Divorce Acts, 1861-1917", see 16 Colo. Law. 1627 (1987).
Annotator's note. Some of the cases appearing under § 14-10-110 were decided under repealed § 46-1-1, C.R.S. 1963, § 46-1-1, CRS 53, CSA, C. 56, § 1, and laws antecedent thereto, which specifically enumerated the grounds for divorce.
Marriage is a contract between the parties, but it is distinguishable from the ordinary civil contract. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Marriage is the subject of a more immediate interest to the state than is the ordinary contract. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Marriage is not a "contract" within the meaning of the contract clause of the constitution. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
General assembly control of marriage is constitutional. Since marriage is not a contract within the meaning of the constitutional contract clause, the general assembly has broad control over it, the reasonable exercise of which will not run afoul of the constitutional protection of contracts. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
In attempting to increase availability of divorces to estranged spouses, the general assembly recognized that public policy does not encourage keeping two people together once the legitimate objects of matrimony have ceased to exist. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Decree not automatic. Although the dissolution of marriage statute was intended as a "no-fault" divorce act, the actual granting of the decree is not automatic or perfunctory under all circumstances. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Court's discretion to continue case sufficient safeguard against hastiness. The general assembly declined to include in the Colorado act, which is modeled on the uniform dissolution of marriage act, the language of the uniform act allowing the court to order a conciliation conference, and thus, in effect, determined that vesting discretion in the court to continue the case from 30 to 60 days was sufficient safeguard against hasty and insensate decisions. In re Baier, 39 Colo. App. 34, 561 P.2d 20 (1977).
"Irretrievable" breakdown is no more vague or incapable of definition than "became impotent through immoral conduct", has been "extremely and repeatedly cruel", or being an "habitual drunkard", all of which constituted, under the prior Colorado statute, grounds for divorce. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
A finding of irretrievable breakdown is one of fact and, where the allegation of the petition is denied, it must be proven as any other essential element of the cause of action. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
Where the parties do not agree as to the breakdown of the marriage, it is imperative for the court to weigh all the evidence and make its own independent determination of that fact. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
The issue of whether a marriage has been irretrievably broken is a question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, and the factors underlying that determination will necessarily vary from case to case. In re Baier, 39 Colo. App. 34, 561 P.2d 20 (1977).
Finding of irretrievable breakdown must be proved when denied. While the dissolution of marriage act did eliminate all the former defenses to divorce in this state, it did not eliminate the necessity of proving an irretrievable breakdown where that basic allegation is denied in the pleadings. In re Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975).
No requirement that valid goals of marriage must be unattainable. There is no requirement that for the marriage to be beyond redemption, substantial proportion of legitimate objectives of a marriage must be no longer attainable by the parties. In re Baier, 39 Colo. App. 34, 561 P.2d 20 (1977).
Elucidating valid goals of marriage which must be either lost or beyond accomplishment before the marriage can be classified as irretrievably broken would constitute an amendment to the act, and that power is reserved exclusively for the general assembly. In re Baier, 39 Colo. App. 34, 561 P.2d 20 (1977).
The parentage of a child is not an issue in a divorce or annulment action between the parents. Devereaux v. Devereaux, 144 Colo. 31, 354 P.2d 1015 (1960).
Formerly, before a court could enter its findings in favor of a defendant, it must have necessarily found that the defendant had not been guilty of a violation of the marriage contract. Schleiger v. Schleiger, 137 Colo. 279, 324 P.2d 370 (1958).
In a divorce action where a defendant pleaded grounds for divorce by way of counterclaim, the issue was the guilt or innocence of the parties on the grounds alleged against each other, and findings by a trial court that plaintiff was entitled to a divorce was necessarily a finding against the defendant on the issues. Schleiger v. Schleiger, 137 Colo. 279 324 P.2d 370 (1958).
Formerly, the grounds for divorce in this state were purely statutory. Pleyte v. Pleyte, 1 Colo. App. 70, 28 P. 23 (1891); Redington v. Redington, 2 Colo. App. 8, 29 P. 811 (1892); Githens v. Githens, 78 Colo. 102, 239 P. 1023 (1925).
For the former ground for divorce, adultery, see Redington v. Redington, 2 Colo. App. 8, 29 P. 811 (1892); Harding v. Harding, 36 Colo. 106, 85 P. 423 (1906); Jones v. Jones, 71 Colo. 420, 207 P. 596 (1922).
For the former ground for divorce, desertion, see Stein v. Stein, 5 Colo. 55 (1879); Calvert v. Calvert, 15 Colo. 390, 24 P. 1043 (1890); Johnson v. Johnson, 22 Colo. 20, 43 P. 130, 55 Am. St. R. 113 (1895); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 72 Colo. 190, 210 P. 398 (1922); Oates v. Oates, 72 Colo. 195, 210 P. 325 (1922); Mulhollen v. Mulhollen, 145 Colo. 479, 358 P.2d 887 (1961).
For the former ground for divorce, cruelty, see Sylvis v. Sylvis, 11 Colo. 319, 17 P. 912 (1888); Gilpin v. Gilpin, 12 Colo. 504, 21 P. 612 (1889); Williams v. Williams, 1 Colo. App. 281, 28 P. 726 (1892); Geisseman v. Geisseman, 34 Colo. 481, 83 P. 635 (1905); Harding v. Harding, 36 Colo. 106, 85 P. 423 (1906); Sedgwick v. Sedgwick, 50 Colo. 164, 114 P. 488 (1911); Shaff v. Shaff, 72 Colo. 184, 210 P. 400 (1922); Miller v. Miller, 90 Colo. 428, 9 P.2d 616 (1932); Hilburger v. Hilburger, 110 Colo. 409, 135 P.2d 138 (1943); Harms v. Harms, 120 Colo. 212, 209 P.2d 552 (1949); Mentzer v. Mentzer, 120 Colo. 412, 209 P.2d 920 (1949); Carroll v. Carroll, 135 Colo. 379, 311 P.2d 709 (1957); Schleiger v. Schleiger, 137 Colo. 279, 324 P.2d 370 (1958); Reed v. Reed, 138 Colo. 74, 329 P.2d 633 (1958); Lininger v. Lininger, 138 Colo. 338, 333 P.2d 625 (1958); Poos v. Poos, 145 Colo. 334, 359 P.2d 3 (1961); Harvey v. Harvey, 150 Colo. 449, 373 P.2d 304 (1962); Cochran v. Cochran, 164 Colo. 99, 432 P.2d 752 (1967); Moats v. Moats, 168 Colo. 120, 450 P.2d 64 (1969).
For the former ground for divorce, nonsupport by the husband, see Rogers v. Rogers, 57 Colo. 132, 140 P. 193 (1914).
Applied in In re Erickson, 43 Colo. App. 319, 602 P.2d 909 (1979); In re Lester, 647 P.2d 688 (Colo. App. 1982).
(1) The district court shall enter its decree declaring the invalidity of a marriage entered into under the following circumstances:
(a) A party lacked capacity to consent to the marriage at the time the marriage was solemnized, either because of mental incapacity or infirmity or because of the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other incapacitating substances.
(b) A party lacked the physical capacity to consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse, and the other party did not at the time the marriage was solemnized know of the incapacity.
(c) A party was under the age as provided by law and did not have the consent of his parents or guardian or judicial approval as provided by law.
(d) One party entered into the marriage in reliance upon a fraudulent act or representation of the other party, which fraudulent act or representation goes to the essence of the marriage.
(e) One or both parties entered into the marriage under duress exercised by the other party or a third party, whether or not such other party knew of such exercise of duress.
(f) One or both parties entered into the marriage as a jest or dare.
(g) The marriage is prohibited by law, including the following:
(I) A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties;
(II) A marriage between an ancestor and a descendant or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood;
(III) A marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures;
(IV) A marriage which was void by the law of the place where such marriage was contracted.
(2) A declaration of invalidity under subsection (1) of this section may be sought by any of the following persons and shall be commenced within the times specified, but in no event may a declaration of invalidity be sought after the death of either party to the marriage, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section:
(a) For the reasons set forth in either subsection (1) (a), (1) (d), (1) (e), or (1) (f) of this section, by either party to the marriage who was aggrieved by the conditions or by the legal representative of the party who lacked capacity to consent no later than six months after the petitioner obtained knowledge of the described condition;
(b) For the reason set forth in subsection (1) (b) of this section, by either party no later than one year after the petitioner obtained knowledge of the described condition;
(c) For the reason set forth in subsection (1) (c) of this section, by the underaged party, his parent, or his guardian, if such action for declaration of invalidity of marriage is commenced within twenty-four months of the date the marriage was entered into.
(3) A declaration of invalidity, for the reason set forth in subsection (1) (g) of this section, may be sought by either party; by the legal spouse in case of bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous marriages; by the appropriate state official; or by a child of either party at any time prior to the death of either party or prior to the final settlement of the estate of either party and the discharge of the personal representative, executor, or administrator of the estate or prior to six months after an estate is closed under section 15-12-1204, C.R.S.