Colorado Common Law Marriage Divorce
We have litigated more common law marriage cases in Colorado than any other firm we know. Almost always, it benefits one party to claim common law marriage while it detriments the other, so these cases almost always proceed to hearing unless both parties agree that they were “common law married.” Often times this is the first dispute to be resolved in a divorce case where there is not a formal marriage license or certificate.
Colorado recognizes common law marriage as a legal and binding marriage. There is no specific time period for cohabitation that is required to establish a common law marriage in Colorado. Typically, one party desires to be common law married for the various rights that come along with it, while the other seeks to have the parties declared not married, for the opposite reasons. This is why you want a seasoned trial attorney who practices a lot in this area when dealing with a common law marriage in Colorado. The court will look a variety of complex cases to guide circumstances and behavior to determine if they meet the requirements for a common law marriage.
It’s important to note that if a couple meets the requirements for a common law marriage in Colorado, they have the same legal rights and responsibilities as a couple who obtained a marriage license and had a formal wedding ceremony. This includes not only having to seek a divorce to separate their marriage, but also issues carrying over to property rights, inheritance rights, and the ability to file joint tax returns. There are a number of recent cases in Colorado guiding the courts in these cases, as well as several older cases as well. Consult with an experienced attorney, as there is a lot of misinformation on the internet, or information which might be true under other state’s laws.
January 11, 2021
2021 CO 1. No. 19SC44. In re Marriage of Hogsett and Neale. Common Law, Divorce, Marriage and Cohabitation.
The Supreme Court revisited the test for proving a common law marriage that the Court articulated over three decades ago in People v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987). Because many of the indicia of marriage identified in Lucero have become less reliable, particularly in light of the recognition of same-sex marriage and other social and legal changes, the Court refined the test and held that a common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement. The core inquiry is whether the parties intended to enter a marital relationship, that is, to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation.
In this case, the Court applied the refined Lucero test and concluded that no common law marriage existed. The Court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment.
2021 CO 2. No. 19SC234. In re Estate of Yudkin. Common Law, Divorce, Marriage and Cohabitation.
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the updated common law marriage test announced today in In re Marriage of Hogsett and Neale, 2021 CO 1, __ P.3d __, emphasizing that a common law marriage finding depends on the totality of the circumstances, and no single factor is dispositive. The Court determined that it is unclear from the record whether the parties mutually agreed to enter into a marital relationship. Moreover, the Court noted that while the magistrate’s treatment of certain evidence may have been appropriate under People v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987), it does not account for the legal and social changes to marriage acknowledged in Hogsett. The Court therefore vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded with instructions to return the case to the probate court to reconsider whether the parties entered into a common law marriage under the refined test announced in Hogsett.
2021 CO 3. No. 19SC1004. In re Marriage of LaFleur and Pyfer. Common Law Marriage, Void Ab Initio, Retroactivity.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether a common law same-sex marriage entered in Colorado may be recognized as predating Colorado’s recognition of formal same-sex marriages. The Court held that state law restrictions on same-sex marriage deemed unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 664 (2015), cannot serve as an impediment to the recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the parties here were not, as a matter of law, barred from entering into a common law marriage. The Court also affirmed the district court’s determination that the parties in fact entered into a common law marriage in 2003. The Court reversed the district court’s division of property and award of spousal maintenance, however, and remanded with instructions to make further findings in accordance with CRS §§ 14-10-113 and -114.
Our Castle Rock divorce attorneys are available for a free telephone consultation today on Douglas County divorce cases and domestic relations cases throughout Colorado! Please call our Douglas County divorce lawyer, Castle Rock divorce lawyer, and Highlands Ranch divorce lawyer at 303-688-3045 or contact us.
Get a Free, No Hassle, Telephone Consultation from a top Castle Rock Divorce Lawyer at 303-688-3045. Our Douglas County divorce attorneys are based in Douglas County, but we serve the courts throughout the Front Range and the entire State of Colorado.
In developing my opinion of value, I have considered three standards to valuation, namely
the Income Approach, the Market Approach, and the Assets Based Approach. Each of the
three standards of value have multiple valuation methods or approaches. I have analyzed the
various methods and approaches and determined the most appropriate valuation methods for
the Company are as follows:
1. Income Approach – Capitalization of Historical Earnings.
2. Excess Earnings – Capitalized Excess Earnings of the Company in excess of a
return on net assets.
3. Market Approach – Multiple of Sales (revenues).
4. Multiple of EBITDA.
