Estate of Williams and Perna
2017 COA 120
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Husband and wife executed a premarital agreement before marrying in 1988 that required husband to pay wife monthly payments upon filing for dissolution; wife waived statutory maintenance in exchange.
- The couple divorced in 1996; their separation agreement (incorporated into the decree) specified monthly payments of $4,379 "commencing 30 days after the filing" and continuing "until the remarriage or death of the Wife," and stated the payments were nonmodifiable while husband remained obligated.
- Husband made payments from 1996 until his death on November 27, 2015; wife received a final payment December 1, 2015 and no further payments were made by the estate.
- Wife sought substitution of the estate and entry of support judgments against the estate for ongoing monthly payments; the estate argued the payment obligation did not survive husband’s death.
- The district court held the premarital and separation agreements obligated the estate to continue payments to wife until her death or remarriage and awarded wife attorney fees; the estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perna) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether husband’s monthly payment obligation survived his death as an obligation of his estate | Agreement language that payments run "during her lifetime" and "until remarriage or death of the Wife" shows intent for payments to continue to wife despite husband’s death | Section 14-10-122(2) presumes maintenance ends on death unless the parties expressly agreed in writing that payments continue; agreements here do not expressly bind the estate | Reversed: payments were personal to husband and ended at his death; agreements did not clearly or expressly obligate the estate to continue payments | |
| Whether general "inure to heirs/representatives" or release clauses bound the estate to continue payments | General survivorship/inure language and nonmodification clause demonstrate intent that obligations survive and inure to estates | General clauses insufficient without clear, express maintenance provision imposing estate liability; release clause also indicates mutual discharge of estate claims | Held that general inure/release language does not establish clear intent to obligate estate to continue payments | |
| Whether district court properly awarded attorney fees to wife under agreement provisions | Wife, as prevailing party below, was entitled to fees under prevailing-party clauses in the agreements | Estate contends fee award was erroneous because the estate was not obligated to pay and, on appeal, is the prevailing party | Reversed fee award to wife; remanded to require refund of payments and attorney fees paid to wife and to award the estate its reasonable fees and costs (including appellate fees) | |
| Whether the estate preserved appellate issues about support judgments | Wife argued waiver because notice of appeal did not list support-judgment issue | Estate noted the notice’s issue list is advisory and appellate briefing may raise additional issues presented below | Court held the estate preserved the issue; appellate consideration allowed | Estate permitted to challenge the support judgments on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Kettering, 151 Colo. 202, 376 P.2d 983 (1962) (agreement language that payments continue "so long as the wife may live" insufficient to obligate the obligor’s estate absent clear expression)
- International Trust Co. v. Liebhardt, 111 Colo. 208, 139 P.2d 264 (1943) (separation agreement expressly requiring payments after husband’s death imposed liability on estate)
- In re Marriage of Piper, 820 P.2d 1198 (Colo. App. 1991) (statutory presumption that maintenance terminates on death unless parties agree otherwise)
- In re Marriage of Koktavy, 44 Colo. App. 305, 612 P.2d 1161 (1980) (discussing interplay of statute and common-law principles governing survival of maintenance obligations)
- Findley v. Findley, 629 S.E.2d 222 (Ga. 2006) (language providing alimony "until the wife dies or remarries" does not clearly bind obligor’s estate to continue payments)