Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, in the form of a verbal stipulation, regarding the terms of their marital dissolution. The stipulation included an equal division of the community property portion of the wife's retirement plan without any mention of the plan’s survivor benefits. The parties could not agree as to whether the husband had survivor benefits under that retirement plan and asked the court to resolve their dispute. In the alternative, the wife asked the court to vacate the stipulation.The trial court ruled that the survivor benefits were an “omitted asset” (Fam. Code, 2556) subject to an equal division under section 2610(a)(2) and the wife was not entitled to an order vacating the stipulation. The court awarded the husband $800 in attorney fees and $180 in costs in the nature of section 271 sanctions. The court of appeal affirmed that the husband is to receive a survivor benefit related to his community property share of the retirement plan. The court reversed, in part; section 271 does not permit an award of fees to a self-represented party. The court denied the husband’s separate motion for sanctions for the filing of a frivolous appeal and to cause a delay. View "Marriage of Erndt & Terhorst" on Justia Law

In 2018, Respondent Timothy Pyfer filed a dissolution of marriage petition, alleging that he had entered into a common law marriage with his same-sex partner, Petitioner Dean LaFleur, when they held a ceremony before family and friends in 2003, and exchanged vows and rings. LaFleur countered that Pyfer’s claim was legally impossible because at the time of the 2003 ceremony, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. In the interim, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that same-sex couples could exercise the fundamental right to marry and struck down state laws that excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage as unconstitutional. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari review to address whether, in light of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), a same-sex couple could prove a common law marriage entered in Colorado before the state recognized same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry. The Court indeed held a court could recognize a common law same-sex marriage entered in Colorado before the state recognized same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry, "state law restrictions held unconstitutional in Obergefell cannot serve as an impediment to the recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision." The Colorado Court held that to the extent Obergefell did not merely recognize an existing fundamental right to marry but announced a new rule of federal law, that decision applied retroactively to marriages (including common law marriages) predating that decision. View "In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer" on Justia Law

When Viacheslav Yudkin died intestate, his ex-wife, Petitioner Svetlana Shtutman, was appointed personal representative of his estate. Respondent Tatsiana Dareuskaya sought Shtutman’s removal, asserting that she (Dareuskaya) should have had priority for that appointment as Yudkin’s common law wife. A probate court magistrate found that although Yudkin and Dareuskaya cohabitated and held themselves out to their community as married, other factors weighed against a finding of common law marriage, including that the couple did not file joint tax returns, own joint property or accounts, or share a last name. The court of appeals reversed the magistrate’s order, concluding that the magistrate abused his discretion by misapplying the test for a common law marriage set out in Colorado v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987). Shtutman petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari review. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court was unclear whether the magistrate found Yudkin and Dareuskaya mutually agreed to enter into a marital relationship. Further, the magistrate’s treatment of certain evidence, such as the fact that the parties maintained separate finances and property, and that Dareuskaya never took Yudkin’s name, may have been appropriate under Lucero, but did not necessarily account for the legal and social changes to marriage acknowledged in In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1 __ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed and the matter ordered remanded to the probate court to reconsider whether the parties entered into a common law marriage under Hogsett. View "In re Estate of Yudkin" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court has previously held that a couple could establish a common law marriage “by the mutual consent or agreement of the parties to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship.” The Court advised that evidence of such agreement and conduct could be found in: a couple’s cohabitation; reputation in the community as husband and wife; maintenance of joint banking and credit accounts; purchase and joint ownership of property; filing of joint tax returns; and use of the man’s surname by the woman or by children born to the parties. In this case, a dispute arose over a common law marriage claim. Notably in this case, because same-sex couples could lawfully marry, the gender-differentiated terms and heteronormative assumptions found in the case law were "ill-suited" for same-sex couples. "The lower court decisions in these cases reflect the challenges of applying Lucero to these changed circumstances." The Supreme Court refined the Lucero test to hold that a common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement. The core query is whether the parties intended to enter a marital relationship—that is, to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation. In assessing whether a common law marriage has been established, courts should accord weight to evidence reflecting a couple’s express agreement to marry. In the absence of such evidence, the parties’ agreement to enter a marital relationship may be inferred from their conduct. When examining the parties’ conduct, the factors identified previously in Colorado case law can still be relevant to the inquiry, but they must be assessed in context; the inferences to be drawn from the parties’ conduct may vary depending on the circumstances. Finally, the manifestation of the parties’ agreement to marry need not take a particular form. Applying these factors to the parties' case here, the Supreme Court determined no common law marriage existed here. View "In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's orders exercising jurisdiction over mother's three children and removing them from their parents. The court held that the trial court properly found that the mother's conduct put her children at substantial risk of serious physical harm. The court explained that the mother routinely disappeared from her children's lives at about 5:00 p.m. until they woke her the next morning for school; it was reasonable for the juvenile court to infer the mother's drug use had something to do with this conduct; and the resulting failure to supervise the children put them at serious risk. The court also held that sufficient evidence supports the finding that father's substance abuse put one of the children, J.N., at a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Finally, sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's dispositional order removing the children. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

In this divorce action in which Wife filed first in California and Husband filed second in Nevada, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the Nevada case, holding the the district court erred by dismissing the case immediately after the judge made a personal phone call without providing the parties an opportunity to respond.The district court judge in this case called the California superior court judge, discussed the case with the California judge, and then after verifying that the California case was filed first, dismissed the Nevada case. Neither Husband nor Wife was present or represented during the call. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a district court may not independently investigate facts in a pending matter by communicating ex parte with another court without giving the parties an opportunity to respond; and (2) where the same action is filed in two courts, and a party contests the first court's jurisdiction, the second court should ordinarily stay the action to permit the first court to decide the issue of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to enter a stay. View "Mesi v. Mesi" on Justia Law

Petitioner H.H. appealed a Vermont Human Services Board order upholding the Department for Children and Families’ (DCF’s) substantiation of a report that she placed her daughter at risk of harm from sexual abuse. The Board granted summary judgment to the State, concluding that the stipulated findings in a related child-in-need-of-care-or-supervision (CHINS) proceeding precluded petitioner from contesting her substantiation and resulting placement on the Child Protection Registry. Petitioner argued the Board erred in applying collateral estoppel on the basis of the CHINS adjudication. To this, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Appeal of H.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's order denying Timothy Grothen's application for modification of his alimony obligation in the decree dissolving his marriage to Martha Grothen, holding that the court of appeals reached the correct result when it affirmed the denial of modification of alimony.In affirming the district court's order denying modification, the court of appeals concluded that because the original alimony award was agreed upon by the parties as part of a property settlement agreement, the alimony provision could not be modified in the absence of gross inequity or fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly used the "good cause" standard set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-365 and correctly determined that, under that standard, modification was not appropriate; and (2) the court of appeals erroneously review the district court's decision under a gross inequity standard but nevertheless reached the correct result when it affirmed the denial of modification of alimony. View "Grothen v. Grothen" on Justia Law

Martha Nevai (wife) contended the trial court erred in various orders of reimbursement to the community for spending related to wife’s separate property. She also argued the trial court erred in setting spousal support and in refusing to award her attorney fees. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed the trial court erred in fixing the permanent spousal support award and in reimbursing John Klemunes (husband) for mortgage interest and property taxes on wife’s vacation home. Further, the trial court also erred in ordering that each side pay their own attorney fees. The Court reversed the relevant portions of the judgment and remanded the matter for recalculation and further consideration. Judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Marriage of Nevai and Klemunes" on Justia Law

Anna Wozniak challenged the trial court’s characterization of a particular residence as the parties' community property. The property at issue was originally owned by Anna as her separate property, but that at some point prior to 2006, Anna transmuted this property into community property. In 2006, Grzegorz Wozniak prepared and executed an interspousal transfer deed, which, if effective, would have passed his community property interest in the residence to Anna. At trial, the parties disputed Anna’s response to Grzegorz’s attempted delivery of the interspousal transfer deed; Grzegorz testified that Anna rejected the deed, and Anna testified that she was surprised when Grzegorz presented the executed deed to her but that she ultimately took possession of it. Over the next six years, the deed was not recorded and both parties appeared to agree that it remained in the martial residence. In 2012, after an incident in which a protective order was granted in favor of Grzegorz and against Anna, Anna took possession of the deed and recorded it. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court stated in its findings that it found Grzegorz’s testimony about the deed to be credible and concluded that Anna had rejected the deed in 2006, and that as a result, no transmutation had been consummated between the parties at that time. The court further found that when Anna recorded the deed in 2012, Grzegorz no longer had the intent to transmute his community property interest to Anna. The trial court thus concluded that the property at issue was community property. On appeal, Anna contended the trial court erred in concluding that the residence was community property. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err in its analysis of the law regarding the transmutation of property between spouses, and that the court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. View "Marriage of Wozniak" on Justia Law