Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court held that, when determining whether to award attorney fees under section 14-10-119, C.R.S., a trial court must assess the parties' financial resources as of the date of the dissolution decree or, if earlier, the hearing on disposition of property. The court rejected the view that financial circumstances must be updated through a later attorney-fee hearing. It reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court's protective order and its order requiring each party to pay their own fees and costs.
Holdings
- When deciding whether to award attorney fees under section 14-10-119 after entry of permanent orders, the trial court must consider the parties' financial resources as of the date of the decree of dissolution or, if earlier, the date of the hearing on disposition of property, rather than as of a later attorney-fee hearing.
- The trial court properly limited discovery and consideration of financial resources to information existing at the permanent-orders hearing when the property division and other permanent financial orders were not being reopened.
Questions Presented
- For purposes of deciding whether to award attorney fees under section 14-10-119, should the trial court assess the parties' financial resources as of the later attorney-fee hearing or as of the decree of dissolution or property-disposition hearing?
- Did the trial court properly issue a protective order barring discovery of financial information arising after the permanent-orders hearing?
- Did the court of appeals err by reversing the trial court's order requiring each party to pay his or her own attorney fees and costs?
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (13)
- E-470 Pub. Highway Auth. v. 455 Co., 3 P.3d 18, 22 (Colo. 2000)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Gallegos & Baca-Gallegos, 251 P.3d 1086, 1087 (Colo. App. 2010)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Huff, 834 P.2d 244, 248 (Colo. 1992)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Jones, 627 P.2d 248, 251-52 (Colo. 1981)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Hill, 166 P.3d 269, 272 (Colo. App. 2007)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Antuna, 8 P.3d 589, 595 (Colo. App. 2000)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370, 1377-78 (Colo. 1997)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663, 669 (Colo. 2007)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Balanson, 25 P.3d 28, 43 (Colo. 2001)(followed)
- In re Marriage of Rieger, 827 P.2d 625, 626 (Colo. App. 1992)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…