Marriage of Campbell, In re, 78-421
| Decision Date | 26 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-421,78-421 |
| Citation | 43 Colo.App. 72,599 P.2d 275 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Vanell CAMPBELL, Appellant, and Melva Campbell, Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Addy, Otto, Stauffer & Davidson, Kenneth E. Davidson, Colorado Springs, for appellant.
Robert G. Cale, Colorado Springs, for appellee.
Husband seeks review of the trial court's decree of dissolution and final order. We reverse.
The primary asset to be divided was the parties' family home, which was purchased by husband prior to the marriage. Husband contributed approximately $5,000 toward the purchase of the house before the marriage, and an additional $10,000 of equity was accumulated during the marriage.
Custody of the parties' two minor children was awarded to wife, with reasonable rights of visitation in husband. Title to the house was left with husband, but the trial court ordered that wife should have the right to live in the home until both of the minor children became emancipated. The decree provided that it would be wife's responsibility to make the monthly house payments, but husband was ordered to pay the bulk of these payments directly to the lender in lieu of child support. No maintenance was awarded.
The decree further provided that, when both children become emancipated, the home would be sold and the proceeds divided as follows: Husband would get the $5,000 he contributed to the house before the marriage, the parties would divide the $10,000 equity accumulated during the marriage, and the remaining equity would belong to wife.
There is no dispute that the house was husband's separate property before the marriage. Section 14-10-113, C.R.S.1973. And, the trial court correctly declared that the equity accumulated during the parties' marriage was marital property, which it could divide. Section 14-10-113(4), C.R.S.1973.
However, the court committed reversible error when it awarded wife the increase in value occurring after the date of dissolution and ordered the house sold. We are aware of no authority, and wife cites none, which would permit such an award. On the contrary, the statute mandates that separate property remain separate, subject to the narrow exception that any increase in value During marriage is marital property. See § 14-10-113, C.R.S.1973. Any increase in the value of separate property experienced after dissolution of marriage is, by implication, necessarily separate.
The trial court was also in error in ordering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. Tompkins
... ... in these appeals are 1) whether under the Divorce Code an increase, during the parties' marriage, in the value of premarital assets constitutes marital property and 2) if the increase in value ... In re the Marriage of Campbell , 43 Colo.App. 72, 599 P.2d 275 (1979); In re Marriage Reeser , Colo.Ct.App., 635 P.2d 930 ... ...
-
Marriage of Jones, In re
... ... at the time of the marriage or at the time of the acquisition if acquired after the marriage." § 14-10-113(4); see In re Marriage of Campbell, 43 Colo.App. 72, 599 P.2d 275 (1979) ... Both parties agree that the trust corpus is not marital property and thus not divisible ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Ikeler
... ... Thus, the statute mandates that separate property remain separate. In re Marriage of Campbell, 43 Colo.App. 72, 599 P.2d 275 (1979) ... Here, there is no dispute that the vehicle is husband's separate property. Thus, the court ... ...
-
Marriage of Fleet, In re
... ... Appreciation of separate property during the course of the marriage is considered marital property, In re Marriage of Campbell, 43 Colo.App. 72, 599 P.2d 275 (1979), and such increase in separate property during the marriage is subject to division under the conditions set ... ...
-
Marital or Separate Property: an Overview for Practitioners
...re Marriage of Gallo, 752 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1988). 15. Marriage of Graham, supra, note 1. 16. CRS § 14-10-113(1); In re Marriage of Campbell, 599 P.2d 275 (Colo.App. 1979); In re Marriage of Sarvis, 695 P.2d 772 (Colo.App. 1984). 17. CRS § 14-10-113(4); In re Marriage of Fleet, 701 P.2d 1245 (......
-
Protecting Marital Obligations from Bankruptcy
...v. United States, 523 F.2d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 1975); CRS § 14-10-113(1). 5. CRS § 14-10-113(2)(a). See In re the Marriage of Campbell, 599 P.2d 275, 276 (Colo.App. 1976). 6. The U.S. Constitution confers exclusive authority on the federal government to make bankruptcy laws. U.S. Const. Art......