Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re the Marriage of Ikeler

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided December 18, 2006No. 05CA0649Published

1Concurrence

Chief Judge DAVIDSON

specially concurring.

I concur in Parts I, II, III, and V of the majority opinion. I also concur in the majority’s conclusion in Part IV that the plain language of § 14-2-307(2), C.R.S.2005, of the Colorado Marital Agreement Act provides that the only provision in a marital agreement that may be reviewed for unconsciona-bility is maintenance. Thus, I agree that § 14-2-307(2) does not state that a marital agreement in which each party has agreed to pay his or her own attorney fees may be reviewed for unconscionability. I write separately to raise the question whether the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In re Marriage of AldrichSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
  2. In re the Marriage of GrubbSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
  3. In Re the Marriage of MitchellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
  4. In re the Marriage of ChalatSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  5. In Re the Marriage of LeeColorado Court of Appeals · 1989

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API