Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Marriage of Paulsen
Citations: 677 P.2d 1389; 1984 Colo. App. LEXIS 978Docket: 83CA0697
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; February 9, 1984; Colorado; State Appellate Court
In the case *In re the Marriage of Dorothy Paulsen and William Henry Paulsen*, the Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed a dissolution of marriage proceeding where the husband appealed the division of marital property. The parties were married for 44 years before the dissolution petition was filed in 1983. The court identified various marital assets, including the family home valued at $35,000, vehicles, bank accounts, and business inventory, totaling approximately $47,100 for the wife and $10,000 for the husband. The court noted that the husband had sold marital property worth $18,600 and retained the proceeds, which the court used to adjust the property division, awarding the wife the majority of the assets. The husband argued the court abused its discretion by considering the $18,600 as it implied marital misconduct, which he claimed violates C.R.S. § 14-10-113(1). The appellate court disagreed, stating the statute allows consideration of "all relevant factors," including depletion of the marital estate. It found the trial court's intention to equalize property distribution was clear, but the final division was unequal by $11,100. To correct this, the appellate court directed the trial court to award the husband an additional $5,550. Additionally, the court addressed a condition in the promissory note, which stated it would be deemed paid upon the husband's death, ruling that this condition was improper. The appellate court also reviewed the admission of exhibits regarding transactions prior to the dissolution, concluding that while some were relevant, any error in admitting irrelevant exhibits was harmless. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for modification of the property division decree.