Marriage of Thompson, In re
| Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-355,76-355 |
| Citation | 568 P.2d 98,39 Colo.App. 400 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Rosanna Darlene THOMPSON, Appellee, and James B. Thompson, Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Yegge, Hall & Evans, Robert S. Treece, Karl P. Mattlage, Denver, for appellee.
Robert H. Gleason, Steamboat Springs, Mason, Reuler & Peek, P. C., William M. Peek, Rosanne M. Hall, Denver, for appellant.
In this dissolution of marriage action, the husband, James Thompson, seeks review of that portion of the trial court's order relating to distribution of property. We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Prior to their marriage, the parties entered into an agreement which provided in relevant part:
"It is hereby agreed . . . that all increase in the net value of the assets of the parties hereto . . . shall be equally owned by the parties hereto, regardless of how title is held to any such assets."
The trial court concluded that it was bound by the terms of the agreement and therefore, after determining the increase in value of the assets, awarded one-half of that amount to appellant and the remaining one-half to appellee; however, the trial court did not set aside to appellee the property which she brought to the marriage.
Appellant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider the factors relevant to a disposition of marital property. See § 14-10-113(1), C.R.S.1973; Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972). We agree.
As a general principle, antenuptial agreements will be given effect in this state. In re Marriage of Franks, Colo., 542 P.2d 845 (1975); see also Irwin v. Irwin, 150 Colo. 261, 372 P.2d 440 (1962); Jekot v. Jekot, 32 Colo.App. 118, 507 P.2d 473 (1973); but see In re Estate of Duncan, 87 Colo. 149, 285 P. 757 (1930). However, even assuming the agreement here to be valid, we conclude that its provisions neither required nor authorized the trial court to forego the exercise of its discretion in its order of distribution.
While the agreement refers to "equal ownership" of the increased value of the assets, it does not specify the manner in which the property is to be divided. Thus, the agreement in this respect amounts to no more than a recognition that the increase constituted "marital property," rather than the separate property of the spouses, which legal consequence would have obtained in the absence of an agreement. See § 14-10-113(2), C.R.S.1973.
Contrary to appellee's argument, we do not deem the equal ownership provision of the agreement to be clearly analogous to a business arrangement in which the fact of ownership is determinative of distribution of profits. Both the agreement and relevant statutory provisions, see § 14-10-113(3), C.R.S.1973, provide that possession of title is not dispositive of the method of distribution of marital property. Further, although an antenuptial agreement may be recognized as a valid contract, the marital relationship itself is not merely a contractual arrangement between the parties but is a creation of the state and subject to legislative regulation. In re Marriage of Franks, supra. Accordingly, when, as here, an antenuptial agreement does not provide for the distribution of marital property upon the dissolution of the marriage, then the applicable legislative provisions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Ingels, In re
... ... Moats, 168 Colo. 120, 450 P.2d 64 (1969), though two subsequent cases have implicitly answered this question in the affirmative. In re Marriage of Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975); In re Marriage of Thompson, 39 Colo.App. 400, 568 P.2d 98 (1977). We now make explicit the rule which was tacitly present in Franks and Thompson ... Courts have increasingly recognized that spouses-to-be have the right to enter into realistic antenuptial agreements which contemplate the possibility of ... ...
- People v. Brionez
-
Marriage of Howard, In re, 78-116
... ... The form in which title is held is not dispositive in determining whether property is marital. In re Marriage of Thompson, 39 Colo.App. 400, 568 P.2d 98 (1977); In re Marriage of Altman, 35 Colo.App. 183, 530 P.2d 1012 (1974). Husband argues that by purchasing the motel as [42 Colo.App. 459] partnership property, the assets of the partnership are excluded from marital property. We disagree. The formation of the ... ...
-
ARTICLE 10
...Colo. App. 461, 608 P.2d 824 (1979). As a general principle, antenuptial agreements will be given effect in this state. In re Thompson, 39 Colo. App. 400, 568 P.2d 98 (1977). Antenuptial agreements, as a matter of law, do not violate public policy and are not void ab initio in Colorado. In ......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...Colo. App. 461, 608 P.2d 824 (1979). As a general principle, antenuptial agreements will be given effect in this state. In re Thompson, 39 Colo. App. 400, 568 P.2d 98 (1977). Antenuptial agreements, as a matter of law, do not violate public policy and are not void ab initio in Colorado. In ......
-
An Historical Perspective on Marital Agreements
...14. Stever's Estate, supra, note 8. 15. 542 P.2d 845 (Colo. 1975). 16. Id. 17. Irwin, supra, note 8. 18. In re Marriage of Thompson, 568 P.2d 98 (Colo.App.1977); In re Marriage of lngels, 596 P.2d 1211 (Colo.App.1979); In re Marriage of Stokes, 608 P.2d 824 (Colo.App.1979); Newman v. Newman......
-
Family Law Newsletter
...19. Ingles, supra, note 3 at 1213. 20. Id. at 1214. 21. Stokes, supra, note 3, at 828. 22. In re Marriage of Thompson, ___ Colo. App. ___, 568 P.2d 98 (1977); Ingels, supra, note 3 at 1214; In re Marriage of Franks, 189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975). 23. Restatement (Second of Conflict of ......