In re the Marriage of Dadiotis
2014 WL 974862
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Post-dissolution divorce case; husband seeks termination of maintenance to wife.
- 2008 stipulated maintenance: husband to pay $750/month for ten years, nonmodifiable.
- 2004 order previously awarded $1000/month maintenance until death or remarriage.
- 2012 husband discovered wife's Greek betting income not disclosed in 2008; motion to terminate filed.
- District court denied motion, ruling nondisclosure not material since husband participated in the business; wife claimed no fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CRCP 16.2(e)(10) permit maintenance redetermination? | Dadiotis argues rule allows redetermination of maintenance. | Dadiotis contends rule only reallocates assets/liabilities, not maintenance. | Rule does not permit maintenance redetermination. |
| Was wife's nondisclosure fraudulent or material under the rule? | Dadiotis argues nondisclosure was material to asset division. | Dadiotis contends no fraud; nondisclosure not material. | Nondisclosure not fraudulent and not material; rule not applied. |
| Should maintenance be terminated for fraudulent reliance? | Dadiotis relied on wife's alleged fraud. | No fraud proven; maintenance should not terminate. | No termination on fraud grounds; maintenance remains. |
| Is there a basis to affirm on different reasoning? | N/A | N/A | Court affirms using different reasoning than the district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992) (maintenance determined separately after property allocation)
- Scoggins v. Unigard Ins. Co., 869 P.2d 202 (Colo. 1994) (no judicial legislating beyond plain statutory language)
- Hiner v. Johnson, 310 P.3d 226 (Colo. App. 2012) (de novo review of whether rule applies to maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Rodrick, 176 P.3d 806 (Colo. App. 2007) (appellate affirmance allows alternative reasoning)