- 7 -
ruling in In re Marriage of Ellis, 538 P.2d 1347, 1350 (Colo. Ct.
App. 1975), affd. 552 P.2d 506 (Colo. 1976), clearly turned on
the first step of this two-step analysis. After noting that the
relevant dissolution of marriage statute did not define
“property”, the lower court stated:
We hold that husband’s army retirement pension and
the future retired pay to be received thereunder do not
constitute ‘property’ and are, therefore, not subject
to division as such * * * . It is a resource of the
husband in the nature of income to be received in the
future * * * to be considered also as any other
‘economic circumstance’ of the husband in determining a
just division of the marital property * * *. [Id.]
Affirming this ruling and approving the lower court’s reasoning,
the Colorado Supreme Court stated:
We hold, as did the court of appeals, that military
retirement pay is not ‘property’ under the dissolution
of marriage act. Our reason is that it does not have
any of the following elements: cash surrender value;
loan value; redemption value; lump sum value; and value
realizable after death. [Ellis v. Ellis, 552 P.2d at
507.]
See also In re Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734, 735 (Colo. 1992)
(a divorce court order stating that the wife “‘shall remain
entitled to any and all military benefits’” was construed merely
to ensure that the wife continued to receive benefits to which
she was entitled as a military spouse rather than as treating the
military pension as divisible marital property); In re Marriage
of Graham, 574 P.2d 75, 76-77 (Colo. 1978) (citing Ellis v.
Ellis, 552 P.2d at 506, as well as a dictionary definition of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011