In Re Marriage of Durie

Citation: 456 P.3d 463,2020 CO 7

Court: Colorado Supreme Court · Filed: 2020-01-27 · Docket: 18SC772 · Nature of Suit: Warne v. Hall
Published
Impact Score: 0/100 — Low impact: This case is narrowly focused with minimal precedential value.

Case Overview

In Re Marriage of Durie is a court opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court, filed on 2020-01-27 (Docket No. 18SC772). This is a Warne v. Hall case.

Precedential Status: Published. This opinion may be cited as authority in future cases.

CaseLawBrief is currently processing this opinion through our AI enrichment pipeline to generate a comprehensive plain-English summary, key holdings analysis, entity extraction, and practical legal insights. The full analysis will include multiple perspectives for legal practitioners, students, and the general public.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Court Syllabus

In this domestic relations case, the Supreme Court considered the standards and procedures that govern a CRCP 16.2(e)(10) post-decree motion to allocate material assets or liabilities allegedly misstated or omitted in pre-decree disclosures. The Court held that CRCP 12(b)(5) and the plausibility standard in Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588, do not apply to Rule 16.2(e)(10) motions. Rule 12(b)(5) and the plausibility standard apply to motions to dismiss a claim for relief in a pleading, and a Rule 16.2(e)(10) motion is not a pleading. Instead, the Court held that, consistent with CRCP 7(b), which controls motions practice in civil cases, a Rule 16.2(e)(10) motion must "state with particularity" the grounds on which it is premised (i.e., the reasons why relief is warranted). But the Court held that this does not preclude allegations that are based on information and belief when the moving party lacks direct knowledge about those allegations. So long as the motion satisfies the particularity requirement in Rule 7(b)(1), it may include such allegations. Lastly, the Court held that a party is not automatically entitled to conduct discovery to support his or her Rule 16.2(e)(10) motion. Rather, the district court, in its discretion, may allow discovery or schedule a hearing (or both) if it concludes that the facts asserted in the motion are sufficient to justify doing so. In making this determination, the district court should be mindful that the moving party must satisfy Rule 7(b)(1)'s particularity requirement and ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is entitled to relief. In the event the district court finds that the facts asserted in the motion are not sufficient to justify a hearing or even discovery, it may deny the motion outright. The division's judgment was affirmed, albeit on other grounds, and the case was remanded with instructions to return the case to the district court for additional proceedings. On remand, the district court should allow wife to conduct whatever discovery it deems appropriate and then determine whether to hold a hearing.

Case Details

Case NameIn Re Marriage of Durie
Citation456 P.3d 463,2020 CO 7
CourtColorado Supreme Court
Date Filed2020-01-27
Docket Number18SC772
Precedential StatusPublished
Nature of SuitWarne v. Hall
Impact Score0 / 100
Jurisdictionco

Related Legal Resources

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions co Jurisdiction Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2020 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings

About This Analysis

This AI-generated analysis of In Re Marriage of Durie was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions from the Colorado Supreme Court: