Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-305 (2024)

Principles of law and equity

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless displaced by a provision of this part 3, principles of law and equity supplement this part 3.

Source: L. 2013: Entire part R&RE, (HB 13-1204), ch. 239, p. 1161, § 1, effective July 1, 2014.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2021 · leading case: In re Marriage of Zander, 2021 CO 12.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Marriage of Zander, 2021 CO 12. · cites it 2× “” Section 14-2-305 confirmed that a marital agreement executed during the marriage became effective “upon the signatures of both parties.”
In re the Marriage of Lafaye, 89 P.3d 455 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “” Section 14-2-305, C.R.S.2002. Here, the trial court acknowledged that the first dissolution action had been dismissed by court order nunc pro tunc to the day before the parties actually executed the agreement.”
09 In re the Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, 486 P.3d 352. · cites it 2× “” § 14-2-305, C.R.S. 2007. And after the agreement becomes effective, it can only be amended or revoked “by a written agreement signed by both parties.”
In re Marriage of Blaine, 2021 CO 13. · cites it 2× “, § 14-2-302(1), C.R.S. (2013) (defining “marital agreement” as “an agreement .”
In re the MARRIAGE OF Denise ZANDER, & John Zander, 480 P.3d 676 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “" Section 14-2-305 confirmed that a marital agreement executed during the marriage became effective "upon the signatures of both parties .”
In re the MARRIAGE OF Jack Allen BLAINE, & Qing He, 480 P.3d 691 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “( 2013 ) ( providing that a marital agreement was required to "be in writing and signed by both parties " ) ; § 14-2-305, C.R.S. ( 2013 ) ( confirming that a marital agreement became effective "upon the signatures of both parties " ) .”
In re Finn, 411 P.3d 1167 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “§ 14-2-305, C.R.S. 2016. 2 ¶ 17 Accordingly, we conclude that a court considering a stay request must ensure that harm to the nonmovant spouse is not likely to occur if a stay is granted.”
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.