In re the Marriage of de Koning
2016 CO 2
| Colo. | 2016Background
- Husband and Wife divorced after an 11-year marriage; by decree (April 2012) the court entered permanent orders on property division, child support, maintenance, and dissolved the marriage, but deferred ruling on attorney’s fees to a later hearing.
- At the March 2012 permanent-orders hearing parties presented financial evidence but spent little time on attorney’s fees; the court ordered a supplemental hearing six months later for more complete fee evidence.
- Wife served discovery seeking updated financial records before the September fees hearing; Husband moved for a protective order arguing the court should consider finances as of the March hearing/decree date.
- The trial court granted the protective order, confined consideration to March evidence, denied wife’s continuance, and ordered each party to bear their own fees.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the fees hearing was part of the incomplete permanent-orders proceeding and that the trial court must consider the parties’ financial circumstances as of the later fees hearing.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals, holding attorney’s fees under § 14-10-119 must be assessed using the parties’ financial resources as of the decree date (or the property-disposition hearing date if earlier).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (de Koning/Wife) | Defendant's Argument (de Koning/Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court deciding attorney’s fees under § 14-10-119 after entry of decree must consider parties’ financial resources as of the later fees hearing ("current" finances) or as of the decree/property-disposition hearing date | Wife: "Current" financial circumstances at the later fees hearing govern; updated discovery is relevant and necessary | Husband: Finances should be assessed as of the permanent-orders/property-disposition hearing (the decree date); reopening discovery is improper | Held: Assess finances as of the decree date or the property-disposition hearing date (if earlier); protective order and fee ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992) (property division precedes and informs maintenance and attorney-fee determinations)
- In re Marriage of Jones, 627 P.2d 248 (Colo. 1981) (property division, maintenance, and fees considered together on appeal; fees follow property division)
- In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997) (fee awards must consider equitable purpose to avoid undue economic hardship)
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (fee awards aimed at preventing undue economic hardship)
- In re Marriage of Balanson, 25 P.3d 28 (Colo. 2001) (revisiting property division requires reevaluation of maintenance and fees)
- In re Marriage of Wells, 850 P.2d 694 (Colo. 1993) (property must be valued as of decree or property hearing date)
- In re Marriage of Renier, 854 P.2d 1382 (Colo. App. 1993) (consider financial circumstances as they existed at permanent orders for fee review)
- In re Marriage of Rieger, 827 P.2d 625 (Colo. App. 1992) (trial court need not reopen property-division findings when reconsidering fees on remand)
- In re Marriage of Antuna, 8 P.3d 589 (Colo. App. 2000) (issues of property distribution, maintenance, and fees are intertwined)