Sometimes, when spouses are unable to privately divide a marital home, the court may compel the spouses to sell the property in a court mandated sale. When this happens, the court will also determine how the proceeds be split. For instance, a court may order a house to be sold and then proceeds distributed in a 70% / 30% manner, or in a 50% / 50% manner, depending on all other relevant factors within the case. In some instances, the court will include a deadline by which the house must be sold.
In Marriage of Bradberry (2024), the court created a permanent order which distributed the marital home to the wife. Although the court gave the wife the option to hold the property on the condition of refinancing, it also imposed a deadline by which the refinance needed to occur. Let’s look at this recent case in more detail. In total, the wife’s share of the marital estate was approximately $700,000, while the husband’s share was nearly half that at around $350,000.
Facts of the Case
The wife used the marital home to operate her equestrian business. This use of the home as a business by the wife was a major factor in the home being distributed to her; she was not in a financial position to sell the house, as it was integral to her business. Her monthly income was only about $1,100, however, and so she also received monthly maintenance income in the permanent order.
Per the terms of the permanent order, the wife was required to refinance the house within 120 days of the creation of the permanent order. The wife failed to refinance by the deadline, and then court ordered the sale of the home. The wife then appealed this decision, arguing that the court erred (via “abuse of discretion”) by failing to properly consider all her circumstances. There were other issues involved in the appeal, including an attorney’s fee award, but the critical issue was whether the court did in fact abuse its discretion by including the “120 day deadline” to refinance the marital home.
Ruling & Discussion
Courts have broad discretion when dividing the marital estate in Colorado. Among other things, this means that appellate courts give a certain level of deference when it comes to decisions pertaining to property division. In this case, the appellate court reviewed the order as it related to the refinance deadline and, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the trial court had in fact properly weighed all the relevant factors in its determination. Or, more precisely, the appellate division simply noted that sufficient evidence was in place to reasonably support this conclusion.
The wife’s primary argument was that the court failed to consider the particulars of her situation: she needed the house as part of her business, and she was not in a financial position to refinance even after the deadline passed. In reality, the court did consider this factor, but the court also consider other competing factors as well, such as the interest in financially disentangling the parties altogether. This interest in disentangling the parties has been recognized as a valid concern, and so this interest simply outweighed the wife’s financial condition in the court’s global analysis. Courts do attach significance to a person’s financial circumstances when making these determinations, but this competing factor was simply more critical.
Contact the Drake Law Firm for More Information
If readers want more information on court ordered sales, trustees in court ordered sales, marital property vs. separate property, contact the Drake Law Firm today by calling us at 720-928-2381.