Marriage of Speirs, In re, 96CA1044

CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado
Citation956 P.2d 622
Docket NumberNo. 96CA1044,96CA1044
Parties97 CJ C.A.R. 2315 In re the MARRIAGE OF Joni Ellen SPEIRS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, and Roy Dean Speirs, Jr., Appellant and Cross-Appellee, . III
Decision Date16 October 1997

Joni E. Speirs, Brighton, pro se.

Chambers, Dansky and Hansen, P.C., Leslie C. Hansen, Denver, for Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

Opinion by Judge HUME.

In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, Roy Dean Speirs (husband) appeals from that part of the permanent orders which allocated to him a portion of the debt associated with student loans obtained by Joni Ellen Speirs (wife). Wife cross-appeals, arguing that her entire student loan debt should have been divided between the parties and that the trial court erred in failing to specify that husband was to pay the interest accruing on that part of the debt allocated to him. We affirm.

I.

Husband first contends that the trial court erred in classifying any portion of wife's student loans as a marital debt. We disagree.

Allocation of the debts of the parties is in the nature of property division. In re Marriage of Booker, 811 P.2d 405 (Colo.App.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 833 P.2d 734 (Colo.1992). Generally, marital liabilities include all debts which are acquired and incurred by a husband and wife during their marriage. In re Marriage of Femmer, 39 Colo.App. 277, 568 P.2d 81 (1977).

In dividing the marital estate, the court should ensure that marital liabilities are not assigned disproportionately to one spouse. In re Marriage of Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54 (Colo.App.1987). A spouse's educational degree acquired during the marriage is not considered marital property. In re Marriage of Olar, 747 P.2d 676 (Colo.1987).

Husband argues that because the law degree obtained by wife is not marital property subject to division, any debt incurred in obtaining such degree remains her separate debt to be paid without any contribution from him. As support for his contention, husband relies upon In re Marriage of Olar, supra, which acknowledged the specific finding of the trial court in that case that the student loans obtained by one of the spouses during the marriage were not marital obligations. However, that determination was not under review or directly related to the issues therein addressed.

Husband also cites cases from the state of Kentucky which have characterized student loans as debts attendant to the acquisition of a non-marital asset which must be borne as the separate liability of the spouse acquiring the education or degree. See Glidewell v. Glidewell, 859 S.W.2d 675 (Ky.Ct.App.1993); Van Bussum v. Van Bussum, 728 S.W.2d 538 (Ky.Ct.App.1987).

However, several other jurisdictions have determined that student loans obtained during a marriage represent marital liabilities to be allocated between the parties as part of the property distribution. See In re Marriage of Roberts v. Roberts, 670 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.Ct.App.1996)(student loans incurred by one spouse during marriage were a part of marital estate, even though spouse's degree was not marital asset); In re Marriage of Tasker v. Tasker, 395 N.W.2d 100 (Minn.Ct.App.1986)(student loan benefitting husband was distributed to him as part of the division of property); In re Marriage of Lopez 255 Mont. 238, 841 P.2d 1122 (1992)(court did not abuse its discretion by including wife's student loan debt as marital debt to be considered in valuation and distribution of marital estate); Bourdon v. Bourdon, 119 N.H. 518, 403 A.2d 433 (1979)(court's order that husband assume responsibility for one-third of wife's student loans deemed reasonable); Forristall v. Forristall, 831 P.2d 1017 (Okla.Ct.App.1992)(husband's student loans were not his "separate debts," but rather, were properly included in the marital estate). We are persuaded by the treatment given to school loans in these cases.

Often a spouse's pursuit of higher education during marriage represents a common goal of both parties to increase their economic standing. Both marital partners may expect to share in the rewards of such education, and it is not unusual for one spouse to assist the other in the accomplishment of that goal by providing a level of financial support as well as assuming responsibility for the tasks of everyday life. It is also a common reality that student loans are obtained not only to finance tuition costs, but also to provide for the general support of the family while the spouse attends school. See Forristall v. Forristall, supra; In re Marriage of Olar, supra (discussing same factors in context of a maintenance determination). Thus, although the degree acquired does not constitute an element of tangible property that can be divided, classifying student loans obtained during marriage as marital debt recognizes both the nature of the parties' expectations and their respective roles in the attainment of the educational goal.

Moreover, as the cited cases demonstrate, treating student loans contracted during marriage as marital debts in no way forecloses the trial court's ability to award such debts to the spouse actually incurring them. Rather, removing such debts from the class of separate liabilities enhances the trial court's ability to enter the most equitable distribution of the marital estate based upon all of the circumstances affecting the parties' situation at the time of dissolution.

We, therefore, hold that the unpaid student loans obtained by wife during the marriage are marital debts and that the trial court did not err in allocating them as part of the property distribution.

II.

Husband next contends that the trial court erred by not considering his contribution toward wife's law degree in allocating the student loan debt. He also argues that the record does not support the trial court's finding that the portion of the debt divided between the parties was used for living expenses. We disagree with both contentions.

A spouse's contribution to the professional education and career of the other spouse must be considered in the distribution of property pursuant to the statutory factors enumerated under § 14-10-113(1), C.R.S.1997. In re Marriage of Piper, 820 P.2d 1198 (Colo.App.1991).

Husband asserts that, because of the trial court's failure to make specific findings regarding his contributions to wife's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Polacheck v. Polacheck
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2013
    ... ... and the division of most of their property and debts but allocated sole responsibility to Wife for the student-loan debt incurred during the marriage. Because the trial court failed to identify and apply appropriate equitable considerations to support its allocation of this marital debt, this Court ... See R.C. 3105.18(C)(1); see also In re Marriage of Speirs, 956 P.2d 622, 625 (Colo.App.1997).          {¶ 30} In addition, while many courts have allocated student-loan debt to the degree-earning ... ...
  • Monica L. Webb v. Larry S. Webb
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1998
    ... ... and that she must also pay one half of the back taxes and ... penalties incurred during the marriage. We affirm ... Larry ... and Monica Webb were married on August 11, 1984, and they had ... one child, Hannah, who was ... the loans are marital liabilities subject to equitable ... division. In re Marriage of Speirs (Colo.App.1998), 956 P.2d ... 622; In re Marriage of Roberts v. Roberts ... (Ind.App.1996), 670 N.E.2d 72; In re Marriage of ... ...
  • Flanders v. Evelyn Jane Lawrence, Daniel A. W., Attorney, Moye White LLP (In re Flanders)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit
    • August 5, 2015
    ...and incurred by a husband and wife during their marriage. In re Marriage of Jorgenson, 143 P.3d 1169, 1172 (citing In re Marriage of Speirs, 956 P.2d 622 (Colo. App. 1997)). Therefore, the Promissory Note Debt constituted a marital debt regardless of whether Flanders ever had any personal l......
  • Warren v. Warren, COA14–982.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 2015
    ...debt by determining whether the student loan debt was incurred for the joint benefit of both parties. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Speirs, 956 P.2d 622, 624 (Colo.App.1997) (holding that while degrees do not constitute tangible property that can be divided, classifying student loans incurre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT