Marriage of Watters, In re, 88CA1442
Decision Date | 26 October 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88CA1442,88CA1442 |
Citation | 782 P.2d 1220 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Martha Ann WATTERS, and James Eugene Watters, Appellee, and Concerning the People of the State of Colorado, Appellant. . II |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Vahsholtz & Anderson, P.C., Robert J. Anderson, Colorado Springs, for appellee.
Jann P. DuBois, Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for appellant.
Opinion by Judge FISCHBACH. *
In this action to protest activation of a wage assignment for child support, the trial court, although acknowledging the propriety of the assignment in part, upheld the objection with respect to the amount that could be lawfully withheld. In so doing, the court corrected a computational error made by the El Paso County District Attorney's Office. Pursuant to § 14-14-107(9)(e), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), it also directed the District Attorney to reimburse the protesting party, James Eugene Watters, for a portion of the attorney fees he incurred in objecting to the assignment. The District Attorney appeals the award of attorney fees, asserting primarily that such an award is not authorized when a wage assignment is proper but, by virtue of computational error, the amount is excessive. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the trial court's order.
Section 14-14-107, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) sets forth the procedure for instituting an assignment of a child support obligor's wages. When, as here, a wage assignment is to be activated because of the obligor's failure to make required support payments when due, the obligor must be sent a notice of activation. Section 14-14-107(5)(c), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). If the obligor fails to object in a timely manner to activation of the assignment, notice may be sent directly to the obligor's employer to begin withholding the assigned amount. Section 14-14-107(7). C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.).
The only procedure for filing such an objection is § 14-14-107(9), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), which specifies two exclusive bases for objecting: (a) the payment was not due, or (b) the payment was made when due. If an objection is entered, attorney fees and costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party. Section 14-14-107(9)(e), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).
The District Attorney asserts that because § 14-14-107(9) does not include the defense that the full amount claimed is not due, the defense is not contemplated by the statute and, therefore, success on such a defense does not authorize an award of attorney fees. Because this argument unnaturally contorts both the terms and intent of the statute, we disagree.
Contrary to the District Attorney's argument, within the plain meaning of the two specified grounds for an objection pursuant to § 14-14-107(9) is the ground on which Watters, in effect, relied: part of the amount designated in the Notice of Assignment was not due and, therefore, could not be withheld.
In addition, the intent of the statute as a whole is to facilitate the assignment of an obligor's wages only for amounts due and owing, thus affording the obligor due process. See In re Marriage of Barnes, 692 P.2d 329 (Colo.App.1984). If an excessive assignment amount were not covered by § 14-14-107(9), the sole vehicle for objection authorized by the statute, an obligor would be denied a judicial forum to correct the error. We cannot presume that the General Assembly contemplated such an unjust and unnatural consequence. See City & County of Denver v. Holmes, 156 Colo. 586, 400 P.2d 901 (1965).
We also reject the District Attorney's implication that the award of attorney fees was unjustified because Watters did not prevail on a sufficiently significant issue.
To be a prevailing party for the purpose of an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute or contract, the applicant must have succeeded upon a significant issue presented by the litigation and must have achieved some of the benefits that he sought in the lawsuit. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Overland Development...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borquez v. Robert C. Ozer, P.C., 93CA1805
... ... In re Marriage of Watters, 782 P.2d 1220 (Colo.App.1989) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct ... ...
-
FD Interests, LLC v. Fairways at Buffalo Run Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
... ... not resort to equity when there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law); In re Marriage of Hall , 971 P.2d 677, 679 (Colo. App. 1998) ("Equitable relief is available only when the law ... App. 2006) (quoting In re Marriage of Watters , 782 P.2d 1220, 1221 (Colo. App. 1989) ). 60 The Developer Entities argued that the trial court ... ...
-
Langseth v. County of Elbert
... ... Robert C. Ozer, P.C., --- P.2d ---- (Colo.App. No. 93CA1805, Nov. 9, 1995); see In re Marriage of Watters, 782 P.2d 1220 (Colo.App.1989) (fees sought pursuant to § 14-14-107(9)(e), C.R.S ... ...
-
Water Rights of Bd. of County Com'rs of County of Arapahoe, Matter of, 92SA312
... ... entitling prevailing party in any enforcement action to recover attorney fees); In re Marriage of Watters, 782 P.2d 1220, 1221 (Colo.App.1989) (discussing "prevailing party" standards in ... ...
-
ARTICLE 10
...of the benefits sought in the lawsuit. A party need not prevail upon the "central" issue, only upon a significant one. In re Watters, 782 P.2d 1220 (Colo. App. 1989); In re Sanchez-Vigil, 151 P.3d 621 (Colo. App. 2006). ■ 14-10-113. Disposition of property - definitions. (1) In a proceeding......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...of the benefits sought in the lawsuit. A party need not prevail upon the "central" issue, only upon a significant one. In re Watters, 782 P.2d 1220 (Colo. App. 1989); In re Sanchez-Vigil, 151 P.3d 621 (Colo. App. 2006). ■ 14-10-113. Disposition of property - definitions. (1) In a proceeding......
-
Recovery of Attorney Fees and Costs in Colorado
...No. 93CA0635, annc'd 6/16/94). 111. See Odenbaugh v. County of Weld, 809 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Colo.App. 1990); In re Marriage of Watters, 782 P.2d 1220, 1221 (Colo.App. 1989). See also Frost v. Schroeder & Co., 23 Colo.Law.. 1581 (July 1994)(App. No. 93CA0520, annc'd 5/19/94)(in identifying pre......
-
ARTICLE 14
...due is contemplated by section and therefore success on such defense authorizes an award of attorney fees under section. In re Watters, 782 P.2d 1220 (Colo. App. 1989); In re Sabala, 802 P.2d 1163 (Colo. App. 1990). Attorney fee award to obligor must be reconsidered by trial court where obl......