In re the Marriage of Roddy
2014 COA 96
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- 2008 dissolution decree: wife as primary residential parent; husband to pay $3,000 monthly child support.
- Eight years later, husband sought modification due to increased parenting time and decreased income.
- District court, after a three-day hearing, increased support to $4,604/month based on wife's 2011 tax return as the sole credible income source.
- Husband moved for post-trial relief alleging wife failed to disclose financial records; court denied.
- Husband appealed; motions division limited relief to CRCP 60 and 16.2 standards; the appeal from the child support order was deemed untimely and dismissed.
- Post-decree order affirmed; the child support order portion of the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from child support order | Roddy contends the child support issue is within the appeal. | Betherum invites dismissal due to timeliness. | Untimely; dismissed. |
| Whether 16.2(e)(10) applies to post-decree relief | Roddy argues 16.2(e)(10) permits relief. | Rule does not apply to child support determinations. | Rule 16.2(e)(10) does not apply; no relief for child support merits. |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(2) for fraud or misrepresentation | New evidence shows inconsistency; asks for relief. | Misconduct must impair fair litigation; evidence here was not sufficient. | No abuse of discretion; rule not met. |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) residual provision | Requests relief due to fraud/misrepresentation. | Residual provision not applicable when other grounds exist. | Not applicable; denial affirmed. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Roddy seeks fees under CAR. | Need specific grounds; vague citation insufficient. | Fees not awarded; grounds not adequately stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Buck, 60 P.3d 788 (Colo.App.2002) (timeliness prerequisite to review for child support orders)
- People in Interest of J.A.U. v. R.L.C., 47 P.3d 327 (Colo.2002) (appeal of Rule 60(b) relief does not review underlying judgment)
- Guevara v. Foxhoven, 928 P.2d 794 (Colo.App.1996) (review limited when timely appeal only from denial of relief)
- State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo.2000) (avoid absurd results in statutory interpretation)
- In re Marriage of Price, 727 P.2d 1073 (Colo.1986) (child support considerations distinct from property division)
- In re Marriage of Dadiotis, 2014 COA 28 (Colo.App.2014) (16.2(e)(10) does not allow redetermination of child support)