In re the Marriage of Zulmacristina Fuguenez Pearson v. Marshall Lee Pearson

Littleton, Colorado family law lawyers represented wife and husband a dissolution of marriage (divorce) action.



The parties married in 2005 and have one child.



The district court first found that husband's remainder interest in his family's Iowa farm was his separate premarital

property. The court emphasized, however, that the evidence was insufficient to identify whether that interest had appreciated during the marriage. After stating that marital appreciation was "necessary to make the final allocation of debts and assets,” the court gave wife extra time to obtain appraisals. The court indicated that it would consider the appraisals along with any objections to determine "whether any further division should occur.”



The district court then divided the rest of the marital estate:



• The court decided that husband's life estate interest in the Iowa farm was his separate property with no

assignable value. But the court ordered the parties to split evenly any future "gross farm income” for the next

twelve years.



• The court designated husband's student loan debt as his separate obligation and excluded it from the marital

estate.



• The court found that husband's 401(k) had a current value of $203,902, with $30,795 stipulated as his

separate premarital property. During the proceedings, he independently took out a $30,533 loan against the 401(k)

and used some of the funds to unilaterally pay taxes separately, rather than jointly with wife. The court

determined that his conduct violated the temporary injunction; ordered him to assume responsibility for the

$30,533 loan and awarded the entire $203,902 value of the 401(k) to wife.



• The court allocated to wife a $10,000 debt from a loan she received from a friend and a $1,398 Apple credit card

debt incurred for the child's phone.



In the end, the district court found that the marital debts far outweighed the marital assets. Because husband had a substantial income advantage, the court split the negative marital estate disproportionately, giving him a deficit of $128,757 and wife a deficit of $23,453.



Next, the district court directed husband to pay wife $4,000 per month in spousal maintenance for two years, followed by

$3,750 per month for ten years, plus $20,000 for her attorney fees and costs.



In December 2022, a different district court judge held another hearing to assess the marital appreciation of husband's remainder interest in the Iowa farm. The court found that his remainder interest lacked a value. It further found that the value of his life estate interest in the farm had diminished as his father aged, resulting in no marital appreciation. It denied wife's request to present evidence of the parties' current financial circumstances and

declined to make any changes to the property division from the July 2021 permanent orders.

We reverse the portions of the judgment involving husband’s student loan debt, life estate interest in the Iowa farm, and 401(k). The judgment is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded to the district court to (1) reclassify husband’s student loan debt as a marital debt and allocate it; (2) make additional findings on the value of husband’s life estate interest in the Iowa farm and whether it appreciated; (3) make additional findings regarding whether

husband’s use of the 401(k) loan funds was for an improper purpose under section 14-10-107(4)(b)(I)(A) or constituted dissipation; (4) reassess the property division in light of the above; and (5) revisit maintenance and section 14-10-119 attorney fees. The court should consider the parties’ financial circumstances as of the time of remand.