Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re the Marriage of Ikeler

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 25, 2007No. 06SC664Published

1Concurrence

Justice EID,

specially concurring.

Under the rationale adopted by the majority today, a district court can conduct an unconscionability review of all provisions of a marital agreement. Yet the legislature has permitted such review “insofar, but only insofar, as the provisions of such agreement ... relate to” the determination of spousal maintenance. § 14-2-307(2), C.R.S. (2006) (emphasis added). In my view, the attorney’s fees waiver provision at issue in this case can be reviewed for unconscionability not because all provisions in a marital agreement can be subjected to such review, as the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Turbyne v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
  5. City & County of Denver v. District Court Ex Rel. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997

6 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