Colorado State Bank of Walsh v. Utt

Decision Date21 August 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79CA1146,79CA1146
Citation622 P.2d 584
PartiesCOLORADO STATE BANK OF WALSH, a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon UTT, Defendant-Appellee, v. Darrel W. UTT, Defendant-Garnishee-Appellant.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

No appearance for appellees.

Larry Stutler, Lamar, for defendant-garnishee-appellant.

KIRSHBAUM, Judge.

Defendant, Darrel W. Utt, appeals a judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff, Colorado State Bank of Walsh (the Bank), $1,530 pursuant to a writ of garnishment served upon defendant pursuant to C.R.C.P. 103. We affirm.

The parties have stipulated that, pursuant to a stipulation entered in a 1978 divorce proceeding, defendant was required to pay his former wife the sum of $90 per month as child support; that on the date the writ of garnishment in this case was served on defendant he had made no child support payments to his former wife; and that on that date he was $1,530 in arrears for child support. Prior to commencing garnishment proceedings, the Bank had obtained a judgment against the former wife in excess of $1,530. The sole issue on appeal is whether the amount defendant admittedly owed for past due child support may be garnished by the Bank.

Defendant, relying upon Green v. Green, 108 Colo. 10, 113 P.2d 427 (1941), contends that he is not subject to garnishment proceedings because his former wife could not recover the $1,530 arrearage in her own name and for her own use. We disagree.

Past due child support payments in themselves constitute a debt. Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. 299, 358 P.2d 864 (1961); Carey v. Carey, 29 Colo.App. 328, 486 P.2d 38 (1971). In Green v. Green, supra, trustees of a testamentary trust were held not subject to a writ of garnishment for funds that the trust beneficiary was not entitled to receive until some time in the future. Here the debt was past due, and defendant's former wife had the right to obtain the arrearages. See Partridge v. Partridge, Colo.App., 601 P.2d 662 (1979). While the minor child also has interests respecting the child support payments resulting from the dissolution proceedings, see In re Marriage of Peper, 38 Colo.App. 177, 554 P.2d 727 (1976), no injury to those interests has been asserted or established.

Defendant does assert that to permit the Bank to garnish him would defeat the purposes of the child support provisions of the Children's Code. However, § 14-10-115, C.R.S. 1973...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Marriage of Wisdom, In re
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 1992
    ...may be appropriate if, as here, it is established that no harm will result to the interests of the children. Compare Colorado State Bank v. Utt, 622 P.2d 584 (Colo.App.1980) with Hall v. Hall-Stradley, 776 P.2d 1166 However, the trial court did not fully determine whether wife was in fact e......
  • Marriage of Murray, In re
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 1989
    ...has not been modified becomes a judgment debt. Drazich v. Drazich, 153 Colo. 218, 385 P.2d 259 (1963). See also Colorado State Bank v. Utt, 622 P.2d 584 (Colo.App.1980). In Hopkins v. Yarbrough, 168 W.Va. 480, 284 S.E.2d 907 (1981), the legal effect of an order of adoption under a statute c......
  • Hall v. Hall-Stradley
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1989
    ...Ryan, 271 Ala. 243, 123 So.2d 102 (1960); Romaine v. Chauncey, 129 N.Y. 566, 29 N.E. 826 (1892). Hall's reliance on Colorado State Bank v. Utt, 622 P.2d 584 (Colo.App.1980) is misplaced. In Utt no injury to the children was asserted or established. Nor did Utt deal with a parent attempting ......
  • Connolly, Application of, 85CA0986
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 4, 1988
    ...v. Petrash, 198 Colo. 231, 598 P.2d 138 (1979). Past due child support payments in themselves constitute a debt, Colorado State Bank v. Utt, 622 P.2d 584 (Colo.App.1980), and may not be modified retroactively. Section 14-10-122(1)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B). Because the father here too......
  • 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