14-10-102. Purposes - rules of construction.

Statute text

(1) This article 10 must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes.

(2) The underlying purposes of this article 10 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;

(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; and

(d) To provide safeguards for a parent with a disability, pursuant to the provisions of section 24-34-805.

History

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 520, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 46-1-2. L. 2018: Entire section amended, (HB 18-1104), ch. 164, p. 1133, 2, effective April 25.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

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); In re Lewis, 66 P.3d 204 (Colo. App. 2003).

Dissolution court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a parent should be removed as custodian of a Uniform Gift to Minors Act account. This issue may be considered instead by a district court that obtains jurisdiction over the account in a separate civil proceeding. In re Ludwig, 122 P.3d 1056 (Colo. App. 2005).

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).