The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the revision of C.R.C.P. 16.2 “does not allow the trial courts to retain jurisdiction to modify property divisions based on disclosures made pursuant to petitions for dissolution that were filed before the effective date of the new rule.”
In the three consolidated cases of In re Marriage of Roberts, In re Marriage of Schelp, and In re Marriage of Barrett, the parties in each divorce filed for dissolution prior to the revision of C.R.C.P. 16.2, which affects cases filed on or after January 1, 2005. After the divorces were granted, one party in each divorced couple learned of holdings omitted from his or her former spouse’s disclosure of marital property. The petitioners filed post-decree motions requesting a review of the trial court’s orders in light of the newly disclosed property. At issue in all three cases was whether the new C.R.C.P. 16.2 allowed the trial court to modify post-decree motions concerning the division of marital property.
Writing for the court, Justice Michael L. Bender opined:
We agree that the new rule applies, in a general sense, to post-decree motions filed after January 1, 2005, even where the underlying petitions for dissolution were filed before that date. However, we disagree with the assumption that the five-year retention provision allows a court to reopen property divisions that were based on disclosures made pursuant to domestic relations cases initially filed under the old rule. Instead, the five-year retention provision applies only to disclosures made pursuant to the new rule for the purposes of resolving new cases or new post-decree motions filed after the effective date.
Legal Update: Crim. P. 43(e) Amendment Proposed; Comments Requested
The Colorado Supreme Court requests comments from interested parties on proposed amendments to the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure (Crim. P.) 43(e), Presence of the Defendant.
If approved, the amendments will add language to the Rule that (1) adds “computer based” to the definition of “interactive audiovisual device”; (2) incorporates additional types of hearings to which defendants may appear via an approved audiovisual system; and (3) standardizes syntax appearing in the Rule. The proposed amendments were proposed by a minority report of the Supreme Court Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee.
Interested parties must submit written comments to Susan J. Festag, Clerk of the Supreme Court, by the close of business on Friday, June 4.
Additional details here.