480 P.3d 691
Colo.2021Background
- Jack Blaine (Husband) and Qing He (Wife) married in Colorado in Sept. 2015, separated Nov. 2016; dissolution followed.
- Wife purchased a residence in Dublin, California for about $1 million during the marriage; Husband made 11 transfers totaling $296,500 that were used largely to buy the house.
- Wife provided Husband a lender‑proposed interspousal transfer deed (ITD) conveying any interest he had in the Dublin property to her as separate property; Husband signed the ITD.
- The district court found the $296,500 transfers marital property but concluded the ITD extinguished Husband’s interest in the house and awarded Husband the marital increase in value. The court also found the ITD was not a "valid agreement" under the UDMA exception requiring a signed marital agreement.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the house as Wife’s separate property, reasoning that an ITD plus evidence of intent can exclude property from the marital estate. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether an ITD can create a new exception to the UDMA marital‑property presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blaine) | Defendant's Argument (He) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ITD conveying one spouse’s interest to the other, accompanied by the conveying spouse’s intent to exclude, overcomes the UDMA marital‑property presumption | ITD alone cannot override the statutory presumption; only the statutory exceptions apply | An ITD conveying the interest as separate property, together with intent, effectively excludes the property from the marital estate | No. A deed plus intent does not create a new exception; only the four exceptions in §14‑10‑113(2) can overcome the presumption |
| Whether the ITD constituted a "valid agreement" under UDMA exception (d) | ITD was not a valid agreement because it was not signed by both spouses | Wife argued the conveyance and intent were effective to exclude the property | ITD was not a valid agreement under exception (d); UPMAA requires a marital agreement be in a record and signed by both parties |
| Whether prior CO appellate cases (Bartolo, Vickers) support an ITD exception | Those cases do not authorize a new ITD exception; they applied existing statutory exceptions | Court of appeals relied on those cases to uphold the ITD's effect | Bartolo and Vickers do not create a new ITD exception: Bartolo applied the gift exception; Vickers applied a valid agreement exception |
| Remedy/remand instructions | District court must not treat the home as separate without findings that a statutory exception applies | Court of appeals’ ruling should stand | Reverse the court of appeals; remand for the district court to make findings on whether exceptions (a)–(c) apply and to exercise discretion on permitting further evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Bartolo, 971 P.2d 699 (Colo. App. 1998) (court affirmed that a deeded conveyance was shown to be a gift and thus fit within the statutory gift exception)
- In re Marriage of Vickers, 686 P.2d 1370 (Colo. App. 1984) (case applied a valid marital agreement to exclude property, not a free‑standing ITD exception)
- Bill Barrett Corp. v. Lembke, 474 P.3d 46 (Colo. 2020) (de novo review and plain‑meaning first rule for statutory interpretation)
- Dep’t of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 441 P.3d 1012 (Colo. 2019) (if statutory language is clear, courts apply it as written)
- Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. HealthSouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948 (Colo. 2011) (court will not add words to a statute)
- Ziegler v. Park Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 457 P.3d 584 (Colo. 2020) (courts must follow statutes and not legislate)
- Amica Life Ins. Co. v. Wertz, 462 P.3d 51 (Colo. 2020) (separation‑of‑powers reminder that only the legislature may create new exceptions)