IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Denise ZANDER, and John Zander, 480 P.3d 676

Background:

Denise and John Zander married in 2001; each brought a separate retirement account into the marriage and each received inheritances during the marriage.
In 2007 the parties allegedly made an oral agreement to treat their retirement accounts and inheritances as separate property; Wife amended their revocable living trust that year to remove the retirement accounts, and Husband later sent a 2014 email naming children beneficiaries (both relied on as evidence).
Wife filed for dissolution in 2016; the district court (2018) found the 2007 oral agreement existed and excluded those assets from the marital estate, reasoning the agreement was enforceable or alternatively enforceable by partial performance.
Husband appealed; the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an agreement to exclude property from the marital estate must be in writing and signed under the Colorado Marital Agreements Act (CMAA) and that partial performance did not cure the lack of writing/signatures.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals: under the CMAA (in effect in 2007) a marital agreement to exclude property must be in writing and signed by both parties, and partial performance cannot satisfy that statutory requirement.
(Statutory context) The UDMA’s definition of marital property and its exception for property excluded by a ‘valid agreement’ remained unchanged since 2004; the CMAA governed marital-agreement formalities in 2007 and was later replaced by the UPMAA in 2014.

Issues:

Issue	Zander's Argument	John Zander's Argument	Held
Whether a 'valid agreement' under §14‑10‑113(2)(d) must meet CMAA formalities (writing and signatures)	The 2007 oral agreement was a valid agreement; general contract principles suffice	CMAA required marital agreements be in writing and signed by both spouses; oral agreements are invalid	Held: Yes. Under the CMAA in effect in 2007, an agreement to exclude property must be in writing and signed by both parties, so the oral agreement was not valid
Whether partial performance can cure the lack of writing/signatures required by the CMAA	Parties partially performed (trust amendment, excluding assets from trust, beneficiary email), so equity should enforce the oral agreement	Partial performance does not override the CMAA’s clear statutory formalities	Held: No. Partial performance cannot be used to circumvent the CMAA writing/signature requirements

Key Cases Cited

Bill Barrett Corp. v. Lembke, 474 P.3d 46 (Colo. 2020) (statutory interpretation de novo; ascertain and effectuate legislative intent)
People in Interest of G.S.S., 462 P.3d 592 (Colo. 2020) (start with plain statutory language; apply as written if clear)
Dep't of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 441 P.3d 1012 (Colo. 2019) (plain-meaning rule; no need to invoke other construction tools when language is clear)
Cowen v. People, 431 P.3d 215 (Colo. 2018) (construe undefined statutory terms by ordinary meaning; may consult dictionaries)
Scoggins v. Unigard Ins. Co., 869 P.2d 202 (Colo. 1994) (courts must not judicially legislate to achieve outcomes statutes do not authorize)
Crawford Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540 (Colo. 1997) (respect the legislature as the branch charged with creating public policy)