Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re the Marriage of Schelp

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided August 7, 2008No. 06CA0424Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Rovira

I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which affirms the trial court's order reopening the permanent: orders and awarding the entire marital portion of Rainer Schelp's (husband's) AMPEX pension to Catherine Schelp (wife).

In this case, the marriage was dissolved and permanent orders were entered in May 2004. Over ten months later, wife filed a motion to reopen permanent orders. On January 18, 2006, the trial court amended the permanent orders. Relying on C.R.C.P. 60(b), husband argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in reopening the permanent orders more…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hill v. DeWittSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
  2. Ficarra v. Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of InsuranceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1993
  3. In Re the Marriage of RobertsColorado Court of Appeals · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API