Court Opinion

ID: 9616339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:45:52.428569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:56.079191
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse on the provision in the court order which would terminate alimony payments, “regardless of the circumstances of the parties,” at the end of five years. If this part of the order is not void, it is certainly reversible error. The very statute which the majority cites as applicable, C.R.S. 1963, 46-1-5(4) states:
“The court shall retain jurisdiction of the action for the purpose of such later revisions of its orders pertaining to . . . [alimony] as changing circumstances may require.. ..” (emphasis added).
Changed circumstances may indeed require a modification of the court’s order. Irrespective of the statute, the court should retain jurisdiction in order to render justice in light of unforeseen events without ordering any mandatory termination.
MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON concurs in this dissent.