Marriage of Watters, 24CA0179

Background

Joshua and Jeanise Watters married in 1999 and entered a marital agreement in 2015, addressing property division, spousal maintenance, and other issues.
The husband sought to set aside/enforce specific provisions of the agreement, citing duress, unconscionability, and abandonment.
Upon dissolution, the district court enforced the marital agreement, divided separate and marital property, set spousal and child support, and ordered the husband to pay for wife’s health insurance for life and establish a medical escrow account.
The husband appealed aspects of the property division, enforceability of the agreement, spousal maintenance, health insurance, tax filing requirements, commissions, exemption for child tax, and post-decree enforcement order.
The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s findings, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of Marital Agreement: Duress	Husband claimed he signed under duress, due to threats and pressure	Wife argued husband participated voluntarily and with legal counsel	No duress; agreement is enforceable
Enforceability: Unconscionability	Husband argued property terms are unconscionable	Wife contended review for unconscionability not required if full disclosure	No review required under UPMAA if full disclosure; agreement enforceable
Enforceability: Abandonment of Agreement	Husband alleged post-agreement conduct showed abandonment	Wife said actions weren’t inconsistent with agreement’s terms	No abandonment; parties’ actions were consistent with agreement
Lifetime Health Insurance Provision	Husband challenged being required to pay for wife’s lifetime insurance	Wife agreed provision was unenforceable under federal law	Reversed; order to pay for wife’s insurance vacated
Tax Filing Requirement	Husband opposed being required to file as married-filing-separately	Wife cited prior tax issues and risk of criminal consequences	Affirmed; court did not abuse its discretion
Division of Future/Hypothetical Medical Debt	Husband said escrow for hypothetical debt was error	Wife claimed need based on injury from domestic violence	Error in ordering escrow, but harmless due to de minimis effect
Division of Post-Decree Commissions	Husband objected to wife receiving share of commissions paid after decree	Wife asserted commissions earned during marriage are marital property	Affirmed; commissions earned during marriage are marital property
Allocation of Child Tax Dependency Exemption	Husband claimed issue was not dealt with	Wife agreed to allocation	Reversed; remanded for allocation as required by statute
Denial of C.R.C.P. 70 Post-Decree Motion	Husband sought to compel wife’s signature on SBA loan releases	Wife maintained issue was moot	Dismissed as moot

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (Marital agreements as to property division are not subject to review for unconscionability under UPMAA)
In re Marriage of Sewell, 817 P.2d 594 (Colo. App. 1991) (Compensation earned during the marriage is marital property)
In re Marriage of Udis, 780 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1989) (Appellate court presumes district court considered all evidence presented)