(1) With the consent of all parties, the court may appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties concerning the parties' minor or dependent children, including but not limited to parenting time, nonrecurring adjustments to child support, and disputed parental decisions. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, all awards entered by an arbitrator appointed pursuant to this section shall be in writing. The arbitrator's award shall be effective immediately upon entry and shall continue in effect until vacated by the arbitrator pursuant to part 2 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S., modified or corrected by the arbitrator pursuant to part 2 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S., or modified by the court pursuant to a de novo hearing under subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Any party may apply to have the arbitrator's award vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to part 2 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S., or may move the court to modify the arbitrator's award pursuant to a de novo hearing concerning such award by filing a motion for hearing no later than thirty-five days after the date of the award. In circumstances in which a party moves for a de novo hearing by the court, if the court, in its discretion based on the pleadings filed, grants the motion and the court substantially upholds the decision of the arbitrator, the party that requested the de novo hearing shall be ordered to pay the fees and costs of the other party and the fees of the arbitrator incurred in responding to the application or motion unless the court finds that it would be manifestly unjust.
Source: L. 97: Entire section added, p. 33, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2004: Entire section amended, p. 1731, § 3, effective August 4. L. 2005: Entire section amended, p. 956, § 2, effective June 2. L. 2012: (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 833, § 32, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case:
In Re Marriage of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Marriage of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Rooks was granted arbitration powers pursuant to section 14-10-128.5, C.R.S.2007, and the parties agreed that if mediation failed to resolve a disagreement regarding parenting time, Ms.”
Norton v. Ruebel, 2024 COA 107 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 24× “While we direct the trial court to consider the parties’ economic circumstances on remand, we express no opinion about what other factors a court may consider when determining whether a fee award under section 14-10-128.5, C.R.S. 2024, is “manifestly unjust.”
In re the Marriage of Leverett, 318 P.3d 31 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 40× “12 This appeal presents an issue of first impression in Colorado: is the award of an arbitrator appointed under section 14-10-128.5, C.R.S.2011, which has not been confirmed by the district court, enforceable as a "court order" under Colorado's contempt rule? We hold the answer…”
In Re the Marriage of McSoud, 131 P.3d 1208 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Under § 14-10-128.5, C.R.S.2005, with the consent of all parties, the court may appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputes between them concerning their children.”
In re the Marriage of Rivera, 300 P.3d 994 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 11× “1 Because Sara Joanne Rivera (wife) did not comply with section 14-10-128.5(2), C.R.S. 2012, or otherwise seek to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award under sections 13-22-228(1) or 18-22-224(1), C.”
In Re the Marriage of Eggert, 53 P.3d 794 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Pursuant to § 14-10-128.5, C.R.98.2001, the trial court appointed coordinator, approved her proposed hourly rate, directed her to submit monthly bills to the parties, and ordered the parties to share the cost of such services equally.”
In re the Marriage of Vanderborgh & Krauth, 2016 COA 27 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 27× “Jeffers, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellee ¶1 In this post-dissolution of marriage parenting time dispute between Craig Allen Vanderborgh (father) and Heidi Krauth (mother), father appeals the district court’s order denying him a de novo hearing concerning a parenting time ruling…”
In re the Marriage of Schmitt, 89 P.3d 510 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 14× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether father’s motion for de novo review, filed pursuant to § 14-10-128.5, C.R.S.2003, was untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the date the arbitration award was confirmed.”
Marriage of Vanderborgh v. Krauth, 370 P.3d 661 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 23× “Opinion by JUDGE BERGER {1 In this post-dissolution of marriage parenting time dispute between Craig Allen Vanderborgh (father) and Heidi Krauth (mother), father appeals the district court's order denying him a de novo hearing concerning a parenting time ruling by the arbitrator…”
In Re the Marriage of Hatton, 160 P.3d 326 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“2006; appointment of an arbitrator under § 14-10-128.5, C.R.8.2006; and the resumption of therapeutic parenting time.”
In re the Marriage of Vanderborgh & Krauth, 2016 COA 27 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 27× “Jeffers, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellee ¶1 In this post-dissolution of marriage parenting time dispute between Craig Allen Vanderborgh (father) and Heidi Krauth (mother), father appeals the district court’s order denying him a de novo hearing concerning a parenting time ruling…”
In Re Marriage, Kniskern v. Kniskern, 80 P.3d 939 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Section 14-10-128.5 authorizes the court to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties regarding their minor or dependent children.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-128.5(1): 1 case
In re the Marriage of Leverett, 318 P.3d 31 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“12 This appeal presents an issue of first impression in Colorado: is the award of an arbitrator appointed under section 14-10-128.5, C.R.S.2011, which has not been confirmed by the district court, enforceable as a "court order" under Colorado's contempt rule? We hold the answer…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-128.5(2): 6 cases
Norton v. Ruebel, 2024 COA 107 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
“While we direct the trial court to consider the parties’ economic circumstances on remand, we express no opinion about what other factors a court may consider when determining whether a fee award under section 14-10-128.5, C.R.S. 2024, is “manifestly unjust.”
In re the Marriage of Rivera, 300 P.3d 994 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
“1 Because Sara Joanne Rivera (wife) did not comply with section 14-10-128.5(2), C.R.S. 2012, or otherwise seek to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award under sections 13-22-228(1) or 18-22-224(1), C.”
In re the Marriage of Vanderborgh & Krauth, 2016 COA 27 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“Jeffers, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellee ¶1 In this post-dissolution of marriage parenting time dispute between Craig Allen Vanderborgh (father) and Heidi Krauth (mother), father appeals the district court’s order denying him a de novo hearing concerning a parenting time ruling…”
Marriage of Vanderborgh v. Krauth, 370 P.3d 661 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“Opinion by JUDGE BERGER {1 In this post-dissolution of marriage parenting time dispute between Craig Allen Vanderborgh (father) and Heidi Krauth (mother), father appeals the district court's order denying him a de novo hearing concerning a parenting time ruling by the arbitrator…”
In re the Marriage of Schmitt, 89 P.3d 510 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“The sole issue in this appeal is whether father’s motion for de novo review, filed pursuant to § 14-10-128.5, C.R.S.2003, was untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the date the arbitration award was confirmed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.