Marriage of Faulkner, In re, 81SC53
| Decision Date | 13 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81SC53,81SC53 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF William R. FAULKNER, Petitioner, and Melissa Faulkner, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Marshall & Marshall, Donald W. Marshall, Jr., Denver, for petitioner.
David D. Mulligan, Aurora, for respondent.
We granted the husband's petition for certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in In Re the Marriage of Faulkner, (Colo.App.1980) (not selected for official publication). The husband asserts that the court of appeals erroneously affirmed the trial court's division of marital property, which he alleges was unconscionable and a gross abuse of the trial court's discretion. We do not agree with this assertion and therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
The six-year marriage of Melissa Faulkner and William R. Faulkner was dissolved. Parties had no children. At the time of dissolution, the husband earned $3,300 per month and the wife earned $988 per month. Despite this substantial joint income, the parties' marital estate had a negative net worth of $1,421. Their marital liabilities amounted to $97,411, while their asserts totaled $95,990.
The trial court divided the marital property as follows--the wife received the family home valued at $63,000 having a $52,800 encumbrance, the furniture then in her possession valued at $3,650, a 1975 automobile valued at $700 having a $900 encumbrance, and two bank accounts totaling $150. Also, the husband was ordered to pay her three maintenance payments of $500 per month as assistance in straightening out her financial affairs. This award provided the wife with positive equity of $13,800.
To the husband, the court awarded a land syndication interest valued at $23,852, furniture valued at $850 then in his possession, and the husband's $3,788 pension fund. Then, after taking "into consideration the disparity of the incomes of the parties, the future earning capacities of each of the parties, the present needs and the nature of the debts," the trial court ordered the husband to pay certain debts of the parties amounting to $43,711. These involved for the most part consumer obligations and a loan in the amount of $28,650 which the husband received from his mother to purchase the land syndication interest. The court's award gave the husband a negative equity of $15,221.
The husband asserts that the trial court's order creates an inequitable and unconscionable division and is thereby a gross abuse of discretion. Also, he contends that the trial court's award violates section 14-10-113(2)(c), C.R.S. 1973, which prohibits a distribution order from including property acquired after the dissolution. The husband argues that the order violates this provision by forcing him to apply his future earnings to retire the debts imposed upon him by the trial court's order.
It is uncontroverted that a trial court may not include the future income of one spouse within the marital property to be distributed. Id. See In Re Marriage of Johnson, 40 Colo.App. 250, 576 P.2d 188 (1977). However, it does not follow that the court may not consider the earning capabilities of one spouse when determining a fair property distribution. It should appear obvious that a spouse's earning capabilities are properly part of the "economic circumstances" the court must consider in compliance with section 14-10-113(1), C.R.S. 1973. This section provides that in making its distribution order, a trial court must consider all relevant factors, including:
"(a) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker; (b) The value of the property set apart to each spouse; (c) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children; and (d) any increases or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Heupel, In re
...of legal separation" is excepted from the definition of marital property and, thus, immunized from division); In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572, 574 (Colo.1982) (holding that the court cannot distribute property acquired after dissolution). While the $117,000 was paid out to Husband ......
-
Marriage of McElroy, In re
...property. Marital property subject to division generally does not include property acquired after a dissolution. In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo.1982). However, compensation which is deferred until after the dissolution, but fully earned during the marriage, is marital proper......
- People v. Sabell, 84SA105
-
Marriage of Simon, In re
...Pursuant to § 14-10-113, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the trial court has broad discretion in the division of property. In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo.1982). The division must be equitable, but need not be equal. See In re Marriage of Sorensen, 679 P.2d 612 The assets resulti......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Oregon: In re Marriage of McInnis, 63 Ore. App. 524, 661 P.2d 942 (1983). Cf., In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1982).[431] See, e.g.: Illinois: In re Marriage of Donovan, 122 Ill. App.3d 803, 78 Ill. Dec. 293, 462 N.E.2d 9 (1984). Maryland: Sharp v......
-
Marital or Separate Property: an Overview for Practitioners
...future wages are an "economic circumstance" to be considered by the court in dividing property. See In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1982), which affirmed a property division assigning negative equity to the husband, who presumably would need to apply future earnings to pay o......
-
Property Division in Dissolution: Partnership Versus Needs Analysis
...1985) at 25. 21. Becker, "Finding Fault with No-Fault Divorce," Business Week 22 (Dec. 7, 1992). 22. In re the Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1982). 23. CRS § 14-10-113(1)(c). 24. Wilson, "Divorce and Economics---Beyond No-Fault," 17 The Colorado Lawyer 267 (Sept. 1988). 25. In r......
-
Employee Stock Options and Restricted Shares: Determining and Dividing the Marital Pot
...811 P.2d 419 (Colo.App. 1990); In re Marriage of Vogt, 773 P.2d 631 (Colo.App. 1989). 4. CRS § 14-10-113(2); In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1982). 5. CRS § 14-10-101 et seq. 6. In re Marriage of Grubb, 745 P.2d 661 (Colo. 1987). 7. In re Marriage of Gallo, 752 P.2d 47 (Colo......