Sara Wright v. David Woller

Equitable Division of Marital Property – Right to Jury Trial – Counsel for both parties (Sara Wright and David Wooler) came to court expecting to proceed with a jury trial. The court noted, however, that the parties had failed to file jury instructions three days prior to the trial date as required in C.R.C.P. 16(d). The defendant's counsel explained that it had to do with confusion over last minute changes in counsel. The court struck the jury trial and proceeded with a trial to court.

The record contains that husband was a licensed attorney, had worked through the 33-year marriage, and had accumulated substantial property. Further, the record shows that the wife did not know husband's current earning as of the date of the permanent orders hearing. The record also indicates that wide had depleted a joint bank account for payment of marital expenses and to provide support, as agreed by the parties, for their two children, who were attending separate law schools. Finally, there was no evidence that any of the property at issue was other than marital.

Wife was awarded property valued at approximately $718,00 and her husband $589,000,plus stock and a life insurance policy of unknown value. Although not equal, such a n award is within the court's discretion, especially as with this case, the husbands lack of participation in the proceedings required the court to award shares of stock and a life insurance policy of unknown value. The husband alleged fraud by his wife in his affidavit accompanying his C.R.C.P. 59 and 60 motions; he did not indicate in such motions the value of either the stock of the life insurance policy. Under the circumstances, the trial court did the best it could in dividing the marital property, and the husband may not now claim this division was inequitable.

Plaintiff was awarded property valued at approximately $718,000 and husband was awarded property valued at approximately $589,000 plus stock and a life insurance policy of unknown value.

None

None

Reversed and remanded for new trial by Colorado Court of Appeals. See: 976 P.2d 902 (Colo.App. 1999). The date above reflects the appellate decision and not the trial date. Reported by EMDH.