Family Law Newsletter
| Publication year | 1982 |
| Pages | 97 |
1982, January, Pg. 97. Family Law Newsletter
It is no secret that the current state of our national economy is putting the "squeeze play" on the family. In times of double-digit inflation, rising costs of housing, and interest rates that make usury an anachronism, the couple who stays married has a hard time just keeping pace.
In the event of dissolution, the financial crunch really hits home. Income that was used to maintain one household must be shifted to maintain two individual economic lifestyles with obvious budgeting consequences for the parties.
The Colorado courts have attempted to keep pace with the economic consequences of dissolution by manifesting an awareness of the state of the economy as a factor in some of their recent decisions affecting family law. This column highlights some of these cases to provide the practitioner with some guidelines in counseling clients regarding the financial aspects of their dissolution actions.
Last year the Colorado Court of Appeals recognized the importance of securing maintenance payments in the event of the obligor's death by giving the trial court the power to order that spouse to carry life insurance to secure such payments.(fn1)
In the area of modification, the Colorado courts recently recognized the impact of tax consequences upon child support obligations. Because divorced parents' rights to claim children as dependents for income tax purposes have a direct effect on the financial resources available for, and are intimately related to, the matter of child support, these rights are subject to modification in the same manner as any other provisions relating directly to child support. Thus, changed tax circumstances may support reallocation of the parties' right to claim the children as dependency exemptions for income tax purposes.(fn2)
In two cases this year, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of the rising cost of living as a factor in modification of support. Although modification was not allowed in either case under the facts, nevertheless, the Court did provide some guidelines for considering the current economic situation in such matters.
In the first case, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial