In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:

Plain English (For Everyone)

When a couple divorces, their property, like a 401(k) retirement account, needs to be divided fairly. The court looked at how the husband's 401(k) was valued and split. While the court agreed with how the retirement money was divided, it sent the child support calculation back for a redo because it incorrectly assumed the wife was earning more than she was.

For Legal Practitioners

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's valuation and division of the husband's 401(k) pursuant to a QDRO, finding no error. However, the court reversed and remanded the child support order, holding that the trial court erred by imputing income to the wife without sufficient evidence of her earning capacity, thereby impacting the child support calculation. Practitioners should note the strict evidentiary requirements for imputing income in child support proceedings.

For Law Students

This case tests the principles of marital property division, specifically the valuation and distribution of retirement assets like a 401(k), and the calculation of child support. The court affirmed the property division but reversed the child support order due to improper imputation of income. This highlights the distinct legal standards for property division versus income determination in dissolution cases and the importance of evidentiary support for imputed income.

Newsroom Summary

A Colorado appeals court upheld the division of a divorcing couple's retirement savings but sent back the child support order for recalculation. The court found the trial judge wrongly assumed the wife could earn more, impacting the support amount. This ruling affects how child support is determined when one parent's income is uncertain.

Constitutional Issues

Due process in property divisionEqual protection in property division

Rule Statements

The party seeking to characterize property as separate property bears the burden of proof.

Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property.

Remedies

Remand for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion regarding property division.Reversal of the trial court's characterization of the husband's retirement funds as separate property.

Q: What is In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: about?

In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: is a case decided by Colorado Supreme Court on September 8, 2025.

Q: What court decided In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:?

In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: was decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, which is part of the CO state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: decided?

In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: was decided on September 8, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:?

The citation for In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and what court decided it?

The case is In Re the Marriage of Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent. It was decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Q: Who were the parties involved in this Colorado divorce case?

The parties involved were Stephanie May Stanton, who later became Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, who was the respondent in the appeal.

Q: What was the main issue regarding property division in this case?

The primary dispute concerning property division was whether the trial court made an error in how it valued and divided Sean Stanton's 401(k) retirement account.

Q: What was the central dispute regarding child support?

The core disagreement about child support involved the trial court's determination of child support obligations, specifically an alleged error in imputing income to Stephanie May Barrett.

Q: What was the outcome of the appeal regarding the 401(k) division?

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision concerning the valuation and division of Sean Stanton's 401(k) account, finding no error in that aspect of the judgment.

Q: What was the appellate court's decision on the child support calculation?

The appellate court reversed and remanded the child support calculation. This means the trial court's original child support order was overturned and sent back for recalculation due to an error.

Q: Is In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: published?

In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:?

The court issued a mixed ruling in In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:. Key holdings: The trial court did not err in dividing the husband's 401(k) account as marital property, as it was acquired during the marriage and thus subject to equitable distribution.; The trial court did not err in its valuation of the 401(k) by using the balance as of the date of the permanent orders hearing, as this is a permissible method for valuing retirement assets.; The trial court erred in imputing income to the wife for child support purposes based on her earning potential when she was voluntarily unemployed and not acting unreasonably in doing so, requiring a remand for recalculation.; The trial court did not err in failing to impute income to the husband for child support purposes, as the evidence supported its finding that he was not voluntarily underemployed.; The trial court did not err in its allocation of the marital residence and its equity, as the division was equitable under the circumstances..

Q: Why is In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: important?

In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: has an impact score of 30/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case clarifies the application of the imputation of income doctrine in Colorado child support calculations, emphasizing that voluntary unemployment must be unreasonable to warrant imputation. It also reaffirms established principles regarding the division of retirement assets in divorce, providing guidance for practitioners on valuing and distributing 401(k)s.

Q: What precedent does In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: set?

In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: established the following key holdings: (1) The trial court did not err in dividing the husband's 401(k) account as marital property, as it was acquired during the marriage and thus subject to equitable distribution. (2) The trial court did not err in its valuation of the 401(k) by using the balance as of the date of the permanent orders hearing, as this is a permissible method for valuing retirement assets. (3) The trial court erred in imputing income to the wife for child support purposes based on her earning potential when she was voluntarily unemployed and not acting unreasonably in doing so, requiring a remand for recalculation. (4) The trial court did not err in failing to impute income to the husband for child support purposes, as the evidence supported its finding that he was not voluntarily underemployed. (5) The trial court did not err in its allocation of the marital residence and its equity, as the division was equitable under the circumstances.

Q: What are the key holdings in In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:?

1. The trial court did not err in dividing the husband's 401(k) account as marital property, as it was acquired during the marriage and thus subject to equitable distribution. 2. The trial court did not err in its valuation of the 401(k) by using the balance as of the date of the permanent orders hearing, as this is a permissible method for valuing retirement assets. 3. The trial court erred in imputing income to the wife for child support purposes based on her earning potential when she was voluntarily unemployed and not acting unreasonably in doing so, requiring a remand for recalculation. 4. The trial court did not err in failing to impute income to the husband for child support purposes, as the evidence supported its finding that he was not voluntarily underemployed. 5. The trial court did not err in its allocation of the marital residence and its equity, as the division was equitable under the circumstances.

Q: What cases are related to In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:?

Precedent cases cited or related to In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:: In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. App. 1995); In re Marriage of D'Amico, 876 P.2d 27 (Colo. App. 1994); In re Marriage of Red CHURCH, 77 P.3d 237 (Colo. App. 2003).

Q: What specific error did the court find in the child support calculation?

The court found an error in the trial court's decision to impute income to Stephanie May Barrett. This means the trial court incorrectly assumed she was earning a certain amount of income when calculating support.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply when reviewing the 401(k) division?

The court reviewed the trial court's division of marital property, including the 401(k), for an abuse of discretion. This standard means the court looks to see if the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair.

Q: What is 'imputing income' in the context of child support law?

Imputing income means attributing a certain amount of income to a parent for child support purposes, even if they are not currently earning that amount. This is typically done when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Q: What legal principle governs the division of retirement accounts in Colorado divorces?

Retirement accounts, like 401(k)s, are considered marital property subject to equitable division in Colorado. The court aims for a fair, though not necessarily equal, distribution of assets acquired during the marriage.

Q: What does it mean for the court to 'affirm' a trial court's decision?

To affirm means the appellate court agreed with the lower court's decision and upheld it. In this case, the appellate court found no legal error in the trial court's handling of the 401(k) division.

Q: What does it mean for the court to 'reverse and remand' a decision?

To reverse and remand means the appellate court overturned the lower court's decision on a specific issue and sent the case back to the trial court to reconsider or re-rule on that issue according to the appellate court's instructions.

Q: What is the purpose of child support calculations?

Child support calculations are designed to ensure that parents contribute financially to the upbringing of their children in proportion to their incomes and parenting time, reflecting the child's right to benefit from both parents' financial resources.

Q: What legal test might a court use to determine if income should be imputed to a parent?

Courts typically consider factors such as the parent's earning capacity, education, skills, job history, and the availability of suitable employment when deciding whether to impute income, ensuring the imputation is based on the parent's potential, not just a desire to increase support.

Q: How does the court's decision on imputing income affect child support amounts?

Imputing income can significantly increase the calculated child support obligation. If the trial court incorrectly imputed income to Stephanie Barrett, the resulting child support order would have been higher than it should have been.

Q: What is the 'abuse of discretion' standard of review?

The abuse of discretion standard is a deferential standard of review where an appellate court will only overturn a trial court's decision if it finds that the trial court made a decision that was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair, or based on an erroneous application of the law.

Q: How does In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: affect me?

This case clarifies the application of the imputation of income doctrine in Colorado child support calculations, emphasizing that voluntary unemployment must be unreasonable to warrant imputation. It also reaffirms established principles regarding the division of retirement assets in divorce, providing guidance for practitioners on valuing and distributing 401(k)s. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What impact does this ruling have on divorcing couples in Colorado with retirement accounts?

This ruling reinforces that retirement accounts are marital property subject to equitable division. It suggests that trial courts have discretion in valuing and dividing these assets, but their decisions are subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Q: Who is directly affected by the child support reversal and remand?

Stephanie May Barrett and Sean P. Stanton are directly affected, as the child support order will be recalculated. This could lead to a change in the amount of child support paid or received.

Q: What should a parent do if they believe income was improperly imputed to them in a child support order?

A parent in this situation should consult with an attorney to understand their options, which may include appealing the order or seeking a modification based on the legal principles outlined in cases like this one.

Q: What are the practical implications for trial courts in Colorado after this decision?

Trial courts must be careful when imputing income to a parent in child support calculations, ensuring there is a factual basis for the imputation and that it aligns with the parent's earning capacity and the relevant statutes.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of divorce and child support in Colorado?

This case is part of a long line of Colorado appellate decisions clarifying the division of marital property, including complex assets like retirement funds, and the application of child support guidelines, particularly concerning imputed income.

Q: Does this case establish new law regarding the division of 401(k)s in Colorado?

No, this case did not establish new law. It affirmed existing principles that 401(k)s are marital property subject to equitable division and that trial court decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Q: What was the docket number in In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent:?

The docket number for In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: is 24SC735. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can In Re the Marriage of: Stephanie May Stanton, n/k/a Stephanie May Barrett, and Sean P. Stanton, Respondent: be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: How did this case reach the Colorado Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Court of Appeals through an appeal filed by one of the parties (likely Sean Stanton, as he is listed as the respondent, but the appeal itself is initiated by the appellant) after the trial court issued its final orders regarding property division and child support.

Q: What procedural step occurred after the appellate court's decision on child support?

The appellate court's decision to 'reverse and remand' means the case was sent back to the original trial court. The trial court will then hold further proceedings to recalculate the child support obligation based on the appellate court's guidance.

Q: What is the role of the trial court versus the appellate court in this type of case?

The trial court initially hears all the evidence, makes factual findings, and issues the original orders for property division and child support. The appellate court reviews the trial court's decisions for legal errors based on the trial record and applicable law.