2020 CO 7
Colo.2020Background
- Husband and Wife (Durie) used a jointly retained expert to value their businesses (Coin Toss, Secure Search, Safeguard from Abuse); they agreed to value the businesses at $878,589 and incorporated a separation agreement into the dissolution decree.
- Thirteen months after the decree, Husband sold part of Secure Search to Ministry Brands for $6,900,000—an order-of-magnitude higher price than the pre-decree valuation.
- Wife filed a C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) post-decree motion alleging misstated/omitted material information and, on "information and belief," that Husband negotiated a sale or concealed material facts before the decree, seeking reallocation of proceeds.
- Husband moved to dismiss; the district court treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(5) pleading challenge and applied Warne's plausibility test, dismissing Wife's motion.
- The court of appeals reversed; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 12(b)(5) and Warne plausibility apply to a C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) motion | Warne should apply; motion states plausible grounds | Warne applies; district court acted properly | No — Rule 12(b)(5) and Warne govern pleadings, not motions; they do not apply to Rule 16.2(e)(10) motions |
| Whether a 16.2(e)(10) motion may include allegations on "information and belief" | Yes; such allegations are permissible when lacking direct knowledge | Such allegations are improper or insufficient | Yes — motions may contain allegations on information and belief, but must still comply with Rule 7(b)(1) particularity |
| Whether a movant is automatically entitled to discovery to support a 16.2(e)(10) motion | Automatic right to discovery to investigate post-decree | Discovery not automatic; dismissal appropriate without sufficient facts | No automatic right — district court has discretion to allow discovery or schedule a hearing if the motion's facts justify it |
| What procedural/ evidentiary standard governs a 16.2(e)(10) motion (including burden) | Move should be evaluated under plausible/alleged facts; movant entitled to discovery and must prove entitlement | Require heightened or prima facie/admissible-evidence standard; or clear-and-convincing proof | Rule 7(b)(1) particularity governs motions; movant ultimately bears preponderance-of-the-evidence burden to obtain relief; district court may deny motion if facts are insufficient for discovery/hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Warne v. Hall, 373 P.3d 588 (Colo. 2016) (establishes plausibility standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) for pleadings)
- In re Marriage of Runge, 415 P.3d 884 (Colo. App. 2018) (holds motions under Rule 16.2(e)(10) are not pleadings; cautions against vague, speculative post-decree claims)
- Craig v. Rider, 651 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982) (discusses "clear, strong and satisfactory" proof in setting aside default judgments)
- Borer v. Lewis, 91 P.3d 375 (Colo. 2004) (addresses interplay of judicially created burdens and statutory preponderance standard)
- In re Marriage of Wolford, 789 P.2d 459 (Colo. App. 1989) (emphasizes the strong public interest in finality of domestic relations judgments)