Divorce proceedings deal with two basic issues: children and money.
Financially, changes in circumstances can prolong the divorce process. Take, for example, the dissolution of the marriage between Jane McClure (now Townsley) and Riley McClure. Their marriage, which lasted 23 years, ended with a divorce decree in 2004. But in 2023, the couple’s case returned to the Colorado Court of Appeals in response to a motion filed by Riley with the district court seeking to reduce and possibly eliminate the divorce. He is obligated to pay Jane a monthly maintenance fee. In addition to changing circumstances, this case was influenced by federal law rules that affect how Social Security benefits affect divorce in Colorado.
To give you a little background, when Colorado courts process a divorce, they first divide marital property, meaning all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage other than by gift or inheritance. The court can then award spousal maintenance (commonly known as alimony) depending on the financial situation and income of the parties.
Under a 2004 decree terminating Mr. McClure’s marriage, Mr. Riley was ordered to pay Jane $2,500 a month in spousal maintenance indefinitely. But 18 years later, Riley retired and her only source of income was $300 a month from rental properties and $3,400 a month in Social Security benefits. As a result, he is unable to cover his own expenses and continue to pay Jane $2,500 a month. So he asked the district court to reduce the support obligation to one that is “just and equitable,” as required by the Colorado Dissolution of Marriage Act. The court reset Riley’s child support to $700 per month, taking into account Jane and Riley’s current financial situation and Riley’s reduced income.
But Riley argued that he could not pay Jane the $700 a month without using Social Security benefits. And that is prohibited by the Social Security Act, which includes a provision that says Social Security benefits are not transferable, he said. Riley argued that his maintenance obligation should be only $300 a month, and that while he could use his rental income, he didn’t need to use his Social Security benefits to pay Jane.
The district court rejected this argument because another section of the Social Security Act, created by a later amendment, modified the anti-assignment provisions of the Act to allow for the mandatory collection of child support and alimony. Therefore, although the antiassignment provisions of the Social Security Act precluded a Social Security recipient’s general creditor from receiving Social Security benefits through legal proceedings (such as foreclosure), this restriction was not enforced by Colorado courts in divorce cases. , the court reasoned. From establishing spousal support obligations that require the use of Social Security benefits. Additionally, the court found that the right to receive future Social Security benefits should not be treated as marital property (and should not be divided as marital property), but under the Colorado Marriage Dissolution Act, Social Security benefits should not be treated as marital property (and should not be divided as marital property). , pointed out that it clearly states that Social Security benefits are the same as other income. Come to keep your spouse.
Mr. Riley appealed the district court’s decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which sided with the district court in a July 3 opinion, stating that the Social Security Act was a matter of first impression under Colorado law. transfer is not permitted. This provision did not preempt the spousal maintenance provisions of the Colorado Dissolution of Marriage Act.
As a result, Riley still has to pay Jane $700 a month in spousal maintenance, using a portion of her Social Security benefits to pay. However, since $700 per month is a marked improvement over $2,500 per month, Mr. Reilly believes that his much-delayed return to Colorado court is a success (depending on how much he had to pay his attorney). At least we can conclude that it did. Jane chose not to appear in the Court of Appeal, presumably because she did not want to incur further legal costs.
Until death do us part?
Jim Flynn is a business columnist. He is a consultant to the Colorado Springs law firm Flynn & Wright LLC. He can be reached at moneylaw@jtflynn.com.
