In re Marriage of Blaine
2021 CO 13
| Colo. | 2021Background
- Jack Blaine (Husband) and Qing He (Wife) married in Colorado in Sept. 2015 and separated Nov. 2016; dissolution proceedings followed.
- During the marriage Husband transferred $296,500 to Wife in eleven transfers; Wife used most of those funds to buy a home in Dublin, California (≈ $1M purchase).
- Wife submitted an Interspousal Transfer Deed (ITD) signed by Husband conveying any interest he had in the Dublin home to Wife as her sole and separate property to satisfy the mortgage lender.
- The district court found the $296,500 transfers were marital property, but concluded the ITD extinguished Husband’s marital interest in the home and treated the home as Wife’s separate property while awarding Husband the home’s marital appreciation ($82,939).
- The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed the ITD was not a “valid agreement” under UDMA §14‑10‑113(2)(d) but nonetheless held an ITD plus evidence of intent could exclude property from the marital estate—effectively creating a new exception.
- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed: only the four statutory exceptions in UDMA §14‑10‑113(2)(a)–(d) can overcome the marital‑property presumption and remanded for findings whether exceptions (a)–(c) apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blaine) | Defendant's Argument (He) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Interspousal Transfer Deed (ITD), accompanied by the conveying spouse’s intent, by itself overcomes the UDMA presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital | ITD is not a statutory exception; does not by itself overcome the presumption; district court erred | ITD (plus intent) effectively conveys spouse’s separate property interest and should exclude the property from marital estate | ITD alone (even with intent) does not create a new exception; only the four statutory exceptions in §14‑10‑113(2)(a)–(d) can overcome the presumption; case remanded for findings on exceptions (a)–(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Bartolo, 971 P.2d 699 (Colo. App. 1998) (conveyance upheld as a gift, fitting UDMA exception for property acquired by gift)
- In re Marriage of Vickers, 686 P.2d 1370 (Colo. App. 1984) (applied parties’ valid written agreement to treat property as separate under UDMA exception)
- Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. HealthSouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948 (Colo. 2011) (court must not add words to a statute)
- Amica Life Ins. Co. v. Wertz, 462 P.3d 51 (Colo. 2020) (only the legislature has authority to make substantive changes to statutes)
- Bill Barrett Corp. v. Lembke, 474 P.3d 46 (Colo. 2020) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)