No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Colorado Supreme Court affirmed Court of Appeals reversal of trial courts' child support modifications, holding that voluntary underemployment cannot be presumed solely from job termination; trial courts must examine reasonableness of parent's efforts to obtain comparable employment.
No. 02SC316, People In re J.R.T. v. Martinez, and No. 02SC317, People Inre J.A. v. Martinez child support imputation of income voluntarilyunemployed voluntarily underemployed shirking a child support obligationunreasonably foregoing higher paying employment all relevant factorstermination of employment firing of parent from employment move toanother city Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act child supportguidelines § 14-10-115(7)(b)(I), 5 C.R.S. (2002). This opinion consolidates two cases in which the trial courts modified the amount of child support that Jason Martinez was required to pay for two of his children, J.A. and J.R.T. In both cases, the trial courts held that Martinez was voluntarily underemployed after he had been terminated from two jobs in Denver for knowingly violating company policy and had subsequently taken a lower paying position in Pueblo. The Court of Appeals reversed both trial courts, holding that Martinez was not "voluntarily underemployed" simply because he had been fired. The Court of Appeals held that the trial courts should have examined "the reasonableness of father's attempts, if any, to obtain comparable employment and pay following his firings." The Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court holds that an income imputation inquiry must start with whether the parent is shirking a child support obligation. Is the parent unreasonably foregoing higher paying employment that he or she could obtain? If not, the child support obligation calculation commences with actual gross income. If the parent is shirking a child support obligation, the trial court must determine what the parent can reasonably earn and contribute to the child's support. The Supreme Court also holds that
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over a certified question of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to determine whether there should be an arbitration-specific exception to Colorado's traditionally defined doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Court held that Colorado's law of equitable estoppel applies in the same manner when a dispute involves an arbitration agreement as it does in other contexts. The Court recognized that under Colorado law, equitable estoppel requires proof of four elements—one of which is detrimental reliance. Thus, a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement can only assert equitable estoppel against a signatory in an effort to compel arbitration if the nonsignatory can demonstrate each of the elements of equitable estoppel, including detrimental reliance.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.