In re the Marriage of Cargill

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion reversing the decision of the court of appeals in In re the Marriage of Cargill and Rollins, 826 P.2d 387 (Colo.App.1991). I do not agree with the majority’s interpretation of section 14-10-122(2), 6B C.R.S. (1987),1 and disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the General Assembly intended “remarriage” to mean the status of marriage. Maj. op. at 1339.

The majority’s analysis conflicts with the clear legislative intent of section 14-10-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), which states that “[tjhis article shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate…