In Re the Marriage of Anderson
252 P.3d 490
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- dissolution of marriage occurred in 1994; separation agreement incorporated into decree.
- agreement required husband to pay wife $225 from future Social Security benefits after age 65, with 50% adjustment for benefits changes.
- agreement also required husband to pay up to $150 monthly for wife’s health insurance/health care, as property settlement, not maintenance.
- in 2008, husband sought to set aside or modify the provisions under Rule 60(b) or §14-10-122(1)(a).
- district court magistrate denied relief under Rule 60(b) and denied modification; district court and appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the future Social Security benefits transfer clause is void under the Social Security Act and Supremacy Clause. | Anderson: clause violates 42 U.S.C. §407(a) and is invalid. | Anderson sought to modify; wife argued it was a voluntary division and permissible as part of property settlement. | Void; remand to reconsider entire property division. |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars challenge to a void judgment under the Supremacy Clause. | Anderson: estoppel prevents challenge after reliance on the decree. | Wife: estoppel may apply to avoid voidness. | Estoppel cannot bar challenge to a void judgment under Supremacy Clause. |
| Whether the health-insurance payments are maintenance or property division. | Payments were property division per the agreement. | Payments could be viewed as maintenance under modification rules. | Payments are part of the property division, not maintenance. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Morehouse, 121 P.3d 264 (Colo.App.2005) (SSA preempts division of future Social Security benefits as property)
- In re Marriage of James, 950 P.2d 624 (Colo.App.1997) (preemption applies to indirect offsets of Social Security benefits)
- Gentry v. Gentry, 938 S.W.2d 231 (Ark. 1997) (uniformly void division of future Social Security benefits)
- Boulter v. Boulter, 930 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1997) (private division of future benefits void; private agreement not enforceable)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 634 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006) (SSA preemption of transfers or assignments of benefits)
- Allen v. State, 203 P.3d 1155 (Alaska 2009) (equitable estoppel cannot subvert federal law)
- Estate of Lee v. Graber, 170 Colo. 419 (Colo. 1969) (estoppel cannot shield void judgment under Supremacy Clause)
- In re Marriage of Casias, 962 P.2d 999 (Colo.App.1998) (remand may be necessary when property division is void)
- In re Marriage of Wells, 850 P.2d 694 (Colo.1993) (consider economic circumstances on remand)
- Hulstrom, 276 Ill. Dec. 730, 794 N.E.2d 982 (Ill. App. 1995) (equitable estoppel cannot bar void Social Security division challenge)
- In re Marriage of Wilson, 888 P.2d 365 (Colo. App. 1994) (language of agreement informs maintenance vs. property division)
- In re Marriage of Wisdom, 833 P.2d 884 (Colo. App. 1992) (extrinsic evidence considered to characterize payments)