In re Marriage of Kann
2017 COA 94
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Marriage dissolved in 1989; separation agreement (incorporated into decree) required husband to pay lifetime maintenance of at least $1,200/month and entitled prevailing party to attorney fees for enforcement.
- Husband paid nothing for 26 years; wife did not seek enforcement during that time.
- In 2015 wife sued for $520,636.32 (about $289,200 in arrears + $231,436.32 interest) and alternatively sought modification of maintenance.
- Husband raised affirmative defenses of laches, waiver, and estoppel; he also asked that if the judgment was awarded, his future maintenance obligation be terminated.
- Trial court entered the full judgment, rejected laches, found no waiver or estoppel, reduced future maintenance from $1,200 to $800/month, and awarded wife attorney fees; husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Voshell) | Defendant's Argument (Kann) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches is a defense to collection of maintenance arrearages and interest | Laches should not bar enforcement; maintenance is a continuing money judgment and delay should not defeat principal; interest likewise should be collectible | Laches bars collection of arrearages and interest after an unreasonable, prejudicial delay | Court: Laches available as a defense to both interest and principal; remanded for factual laches analysis (but recognized special policy distinctions between child support and spousal maintenance) |
| Whether waiver (express or implied) bars enforcement | Wife: no waiver; she intended to collect and delayed for fear and other reasons | Husband: wife waived by words/conduct or impliedly by long inaction | Court: No express or implied waiver; trial court’s credibility findings affirmed |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars enforcement | Wife: estoppel not established | Husband: detrimentally relied on wife’s inaction and would have acted differently | Court: Estoppel not proven (trial court found no detrimental reliance); affirmed |
| Whether trial court properly modified (or should have terminated) future maintenance given enforcement result | Wife: sought modification only if denied judgment; otherwise wanted arrearages judgment and not future maintenance simultaneously | Husband: if not relieved of arrears he wanted termination of future maintenance | Court: Modification order reversed; remanded — if full judgment is awarded future maintenance should terminate; if none awarded it continues; partial enforcement requires court discretion and findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hauck v. Schuck, 143 Colo. 324, 353 P.2d 79 (1960) (holding laches not a defense in actions to collect past due child support)
- Jenner v. Jenner, 138 Colo. 149, 330 P.2d 544 (1958) (limited laches to contempt proceedings in combined support enforcement)
- Price v. Price, 80 Colo. 158, 249 P. 648 (1926) (noting recovery of arrearages can be reimbursement to spouse and discussing laches in contempt context)
- In re Marriage of Meisner, 807 P.2d 1205 (Colo. App. 1990) (child support laches precedent)
- In re Marriage of Udis, 780 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1989) (standard for modifying maintenance when agreement is silent)
- In re Marriage of Nimmo, 891 P.2d 1002 (Colo. 1995) (purpose of child support to preserve child’s standard of living)
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (maintenance aimed at meeting basic needs of disadvantaged spouse)
- In re Marriage of Antuna, 8 P.3d 589 (Colo. App. 2000) (maintenance does not guarantee equal lifestyle indefinitely)