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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-307 (2026)

When agreement effective

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A premarital agreement is effective on marriage. A marital agreement is effective on signing by both parties.

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

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 14-2-305 as it existed prior to 2013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 86× “Section 14-2-307 allows unconscionability review only of those provisions that "relate to" the determination of spousal maintenance when those provisions have become unconscionable at the time of enforcement.”
In re the Marriage of Salby, 126 P.3d 291 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Section 14-2-307(1), C.R.S.2004. However, an agreement between spouses that is signed by both parties before the filing of an action for dissolution of the marriage or for legal separation, but in contemplation of dissolution or separation is a separation agreement.”
In re Marriage of Zander, 2021 CO 12 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “”); § 14-2-307, C.R.S. (2020) (“A marital agreement is effective on signing by both parties.”
09 In re the Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See § 14-2-307(1)(b), C.R.S. 2007; Bisque, 31 P.”
In Re the Marriage of Ikeler, 148 P.3d 347 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 20× “Specifically, he argues that pursuant to § 14-2-307(2), C.R.S.2005, the court may not conclude that a marital agreement in which each party has agreed to pay his or her own attorney fees is unconscionable and therefore award fees.”
In re Marriage of Blaine, 2021 CO 13 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “” § 14-2-307, C.R.S. (2020).4 Thus, an agreement between spouses intending to remain married, which seeks to exclude property from the marital estate, cannot be a “valid agreement” under exception (d) unless it is in writing and signed by both parties.”
In Re the Marriage of Goldin, 923 P.2d 376 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Section 14-2-307, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B); In re Marriage of Christen, supra (holding that a clear and unambiguous agreement must be enforced as written).”
In Re the Marriage of Bisque, 31 P.3d 175 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “1997), and In re Marriage of Goldin, supra, as holding that agreements made prior to filing "must be reviewed [as marital agreements] under C.R.S. 14-2-307, even when it is obvious that the agreements were made in contemplation of an actual, planned divorce.”
In Re the Marriage of Christen, 899 P.2d 339 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Section 14-2-304(l)(d), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
In Re the Marriage of Dechant, 867 P.2d 193 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “This principle has now been codified by the Marital Agreement Act at § 14-2-307, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 6A). However, we do not analyze the antenuptial agreement here under that act because it was entered into prior to July 1, 1986, the effective date of § 14-2-307.”
In Re the Marriage of Popack, 998 P.2d 464 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “1999, and, as well, to the standards of voluntariness, fair disclosure, and conscionability applied to marital agreements under § 14-2-307, C.R.S.1999.' Consequently, we conclude that in order for the agreement to be enforceable, it must be conscionable and must be entered into…”
IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Denise ZANDER, & John Zander, 480 P.3d 676 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “" ) ; § 14-2-307, C.R.S. ( 2020 ) ( "A marital agreement is effective on signing by both parties .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-307(1): 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Salby, 126 P.3d 291 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Section 14-2-307(1), C.R.S.2004. However, an agreement between spouses that is signed by both parties before the filing of an action for dissolution of the marriage or for legal separation, but in contemplation of dissolution or separation is a separation agreement.”
In Re the Marriage of Bisque, 31 P.3d 175 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “1997), and In re Marriage of Goldin, supra, as holding that agreements made prior to filing "must be reviewed [as marital agreements] under C.R.S. 14-2-307, even when it is obvious that the agreements were made in contemplation of an actual, planned divorce.”
Marriage of Bailey (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-307(1)(b): 2 cases
09 In re the Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “See § 14-2-307(1)(b), C.R.S. 2007; Bisque, 31 P.”
Marriage of Bailey (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-307(2): 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007). “Section 14-2-307 allows unconscionability review only of those provisions that "relate to" the determination of spousal maintenance when those provisions have become unconscionable at the time of enforcement.”
In Re the Marriage of Ikeler, 148 P.3d 347 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Specifically, he argues that pursuant to § 14-2-307(2), C.R.S.2005, the court may not conclude that a marital agreement in which each party has agreed to pay his or her own attorney fees is unconscionable and therefore award fees.”
In Re the Marriage of Christen, 899 P.2d 339 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 14-2-304(l)(d), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
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.