(1) Upon the docketing in a court of
competent jurisdiction in this state of exemplified copies of all the written pleadings and court
orders, judgments, and decrees in a case of divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment, or for
support of minor children or a spouse, or for a protection order or other court order issued for the
protection of a party or parties, or for a combination of the same entered in any court of
competent jurisdiction in any other state or jurisdiction having reciprocal provisions for a like
enforcement of orders, judgments, or decrees entered in the state of Colorado and upon obtaining
jurisdiction by personal service of process as provided by the Colorado rules of civil procedure,
said court in this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the person in like
manner as if the original suit or action had been commenced in this state, and is empowered to
amend, modify, set aside, and make new orders as the court may find necessary and proper so as
to do justice and equity to all parties to the action according to the public policy of this state, and
has the same right, power, and authority to enter orders for temporary alimony, support money,
and attorney fees as in similar actions originating in this state.
(2) The courts of this state in cases of dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or
declaration of invalidity of marriage, or for support of minor children or a spouse, or for the
protection of a party or parties by means of a protection order, however styled or designated, or
for any combination of the same, where the action originated in this state, have the power to
enforce the decrees, judgments, and orders of other states or jurisdictions made pursuant to
statutes similar to this statute, or to amend the same, or to enter new orders to the same extent
and in the same manner as though such decrees, judgments, and orders were entered in the courts
of this state.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, a restraining or protection order issued
by a court of any state, any Indian tribe, or any United States territory shall be enforced pursuant
to section 13-14-110, C.R.S.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, a child-custody determination, as that
term is defined in section 14-13-102 (3), issued by a court of another state shall be registered in
accordance with section 14-13-305.
Source: L. 47: pp. 398, 399, §§ 1, 2. CSA: C. 56, § 39. CRS 53: § 46-4-1. C.R.S. 1963:
§ 46-4-1. L. 75: Entire section amended, p. 210, § 26, effective July 16. L. 94: Entire section
amended, p. 2034, § 11, effective July 1. L. 98: (3) added, p. 1235, § 7, effective July 1. L.
2000: (4) added, p. 1538, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2003: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1012, § 18,
effective July 1. L. 2005: (3) amended, p. 765, § 23, effective June 1. L. 2013: (3) amended,
(HB 13-1259), ch. 218, p. 1016, § 18, effective July 1.
Cross references: For procedure in pleading a foreign judgment or decree, see C.R.C.P.
9(e); for enforcement of foreign judgments, see article 53 of title 13; for the "Uniform Child-
custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act", see article 13 of this title 14; for enforcement of
support orders from another state or foreign country, see the "Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act", article 5 of this title 14.
ARTICLE 12
Marriage Counseling
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Marriage of Hillstrom, 126 P.3d 315 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 29× “§ 14-5-104, C.R.S. § 14-11-101 can be construed as a basis for conferring subject matter jurisdiction in actions brought for the purpose of establishing or enforcing a foreign support order because the sections do not conflict in regard to establishing or enforcing such orders.”
Glickman v. Mesigh, 615 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 32× “1 The action in the district court was commenced by the petitioner-appellee, Sharon Kay Glickman, under section 14-11-101, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.”
In Re the Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “On our own, however, we note that, because the parties' dissolution action originated in Colorado, section 14-11-101(2), C.R.S8.2010, authorizes the trial court to enforce the Georgia order.”
In re the Marriage of Lohman, 2015 COA 134 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 28× “The court's order granting the petition to register the foreign support order states that "[this court is being asked to rule on Petitioner's request to domesticate a foreign judgment pursuant to CRS. 14-11-101." However, the court then addressed husband's objections to…”
In Re the Marriage of Mowrer, 817 P.2d 612 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “II Next, mother argues that the trial court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction to modify child support since the Arkansas *614 decree and subsequent modifications had been registered in accordance with § 14-11-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). We disagree.”
In re C.G.G., 946 P.2d 603 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 11× “After the completion of those proceedings in which the Swedish court determined the agreements were valid, wife filed a motion to vacate the stay, requesting that the foreign decree entered in Sweden be docketed under § 14-11-101, C.R.S.1997. She reasserted that husband was not…”
Stevens v. Stevens, 611 P.2d 590 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 6× “Adoption of Texas Order Husband contends that the court erred by adopting the Texas modification order because, under § 14-11-101, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.), before a Colorado court may adopt a foreign judgment under this statute, it must be shown that the foreign state has…”
In Re the Marriage of Lyon, 764 P.2d 384 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 10× “” Rejecting husband’s affirmative defense, the trial court entered wife’s requested judgment after determining that § 13-80-119 was inapplicable because it had been repealed at the time wife’s motion was filed, and because a proceeding under § 14-11-101 is not an action upon a…”
In re the Marriage of Warkocz, 141 P.3d 926 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “In 2003, wife requested, and was granted, permission to docket the Florida decree in Colorado under § 14-11-101, C.R.S.2005. In 2004, wife sought entry of judgment for $5000 of unpaid military retirement pay, alleging that husband had failed to make any payments to her.”
In Re the Marriage of Ness, 759 P.2d 844 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Wife docketed exemplified copies of the pleadings, orders, judgments, and decrees entered by the Nebraska court in the Colorado district court pursuant to § 14-11-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). She contemporaneously filed a motion in the Colorado court for a contempt citation…”
In Re the Marriage of McCabe, 819 P.2d 1116 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “In September 1988, wife petitioned in Colorado for registration of the California decree under § 14-11-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) and also sought an increase in support.”
In re the Marriage of Orr, 36 P.3d 194 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Husband contends that wife's initial failure to comply with the statutory requirement in § 14-11-101(1), C.R.8.2001, to attach exemplified copies of the Texas file deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties' Texas agreement at the time the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-11-101(1) — 12 cases
In Re the Marriage of Lyon, 764 P.2d 384 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“” Rejecting husband’s affirmative defense, the trial court entered wife’s requested judgment after determining that § 13-80-119 was inapplicable because it had been repealed at the time wife’s motion was filed, and because a proceeding under § 14-11-101 is not an action upon a…”
In re C.G.G., 946 P.2d 603 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
“After the completion of those proceedings in which the Swedish court determined the agreements were valid, wife filed a motion to vacate the stay, requesting that the foreign decree entered in Sweden be docketed under § 14-11-101, C.R.S.1997. She reasserted that husband was not…”
In re the Marriage of Orr, 36 P.3d 194 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Husband contends that wife's initial failure to comply with the statutory requirement in § 14-11-101(1), C.R.8.2001, to attach exemplified copies of the Texas file deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties' Texas agreement at the time the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-11-101(2) — 4 cases
In Re the Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“On our own, however, we note that, because the parties' dissolution action originated in Colorado, section 14-11-101(2), C.R.S8.2010, authorizes the trial court to enforce the Georgia order.”
In Re the Marriage of Mowrer, 817 P.2d 612 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
“II Next, mother argues that the trial court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction to modify child support since the Arkansas *614 decree and subsequent modifications had been registered in accordance with § 14-11-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). We disagree.”
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.