 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Paul11/21/1991
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, John Michael Paul (husband) appeals from that part of the judgment relative to the interest of Dana Charmion Paul (wife) in Writer Development, Ltd., a Colorado general partnership. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The parties dissolved their marriage after twenty-two years. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in distributing wife's 22.5 percent interest in Writer Development.
After the parties married, Writer Development was formed by wife and her two brothers as general partners. It is uncontroverted that the partnership was funded exclusively with borrowed capital, that wife made no contribution of her separate assets to the partnership, and that husband played a significant role in developing the business. The trial court found wife's 22.5 per cent partnership interest to be a marital asset, and that ruling has not been challenged.
The partnership assets consist of an office building, which is under lease through 1992, and 15 acres of surrounding, undeveloped property. Although husband's attorney stated in opening remarks that the partnership property was worth approximately $9.8 million, neither party presented any evidence of current value. The trial court, therefore, did not value the partnership interest. Instead, the court distributed the interest to wife, under the following terms:
The 22.5 percent interest in Writer's Development Ltd. is awarded to the wife. When the wife's interest in this asset is sold or subject to full or partial distribution, the net proceeds shall be divided between the parties 66 2/3 percent to the wife and 33 1/3 percent to the husband. Each party will be responsible, pursuant to the same ratio, for all capital calls and any debt related to the wife's interest in this partnership. The wife shall be entitled to receive all regular monthly income distributions from this partnership. However, if those distributions exceed the amount of those received in the past, the excess amount shall be shared by the parties on the applicable ratio as provided herein.
The court imposed no limitations on the time and manner of the payment of husband's interest, nor any restrictions on wife's exclusive control of the asset.
I
Husband contends that the court's order is "illusory" because it maintains the parties' common ownership of a marital asset, yet deprives him of any legal or beneficial attributes of ownership. We agree.
Generally, it is improper for the trial court to continue a joint or common tenancy between divorced spouses. Henderson v. Henderson, 164 Colo. 1, 431 P.2d 1022 (1967). Instead, a division of marital property should leave to each party a definable or ascertainable portion of at least some of the attributes of ownership. In re Marriage of Gehret, 41 Colo. App. 162, 580 P.2d 1275 (1978).
This rule is derived both from the statutory mandate under § 14-10-113(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B), to "divide the marital property," and from the public policy of discouraging continued litigation and ongoing financial interaction between divorced spouses. See Santilli v. Santilli, 169 Colo. 49, 453 P.2d 606 (1969); L. Golden, Equitable Distribution of Property § 8.08 (1983).
Here, inasmuch as wife and her brothers have exclusive control of business operations, husband has no assurance that he will ever receive any income or ultimate distribution of the partnership interest. Also, he has no ability to participate in or remain inform
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|