DeAnna S. Dotson and Robert L. Dotson - Page 8

                                        - 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                   
          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