The Colorado Court of Appeals issued a ruling on October 22, 2026, in the divorce case of Chrissy Sue Becker and Donald Scott Becker, affecting child support, maintenance, and contempt judgments. The court's decision has implications for both parties and clarifies certain aspects of family law in Colorado.
The case, identified by docket number 25CA1980, arose from the dissolution of the Becker's marriage in 2020. The district court had previously ordered the couple to divide their 529 college savings accounts for their children’s education and mandated that Donald pay maintenance and child support to Chrissy. Following disputes over compliance with these orders, Chrissy filed a motion for contempt against Donald in November 2021, claiming he had underpaid maintenance and child support, and failed to utilize the 529 accounts as ordered.
In July 2023, the magistrate found Donald in contempt for both allegations and imposed sanctions, including an order for him to pay Chrissy $13,970 for her attorney fees. Donald appealed this ruling, leading to the recent decision from the Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the contempt judgments but reversed the attorney fees award, sending the case back to the lower court for further findings on that issue.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that the district court had initially ordered the couple to use their 529 accounts for their children's education. However, Donald argued that the magistrate misinterpreted the order by imposing an affirmative duty on him to use the funds. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that the magistrate's interpretation was reasonable and supported by the overall context of the original order.
Additionally, the magistrate found that Donald owed significant amounts in unpaid maintenance and child support. The court noted that Donald had the financial means to comply with the support order, as evidenced by his financial affidavits showing substantial assets. Donald's claims of inability to pay were rejected by the magistrate, who found that he had willfully violated the court's orders.
The Court of Appeals also addressed Donald's motion to modify maintenance, which he filed citing his unemployment and Chrissy's improved financial situation. The magistrate denied this motion, concluding that Donald had not demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a modification. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, affirming that the magistrate had applied the correct legal standards in evaluating the request.
In summary, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the contempt findings against Donald Becker were valid and that he had the financial ability to meet his obligations. However, the court found that the magistrate had not provided sufficient justification for the award of attorney fees to Chrissy Becker, leading to the reversal of that portion of the ruling.
This case highlights the complexities involved in family law, particularly regarding compliance with court orders related to child support and maintenance. It serves as a reminder for individuals involved in similar disputes to understand their obligations and the potential consequences of noncompliance.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how the lower court will address the issue of attorney fees following the appellate court's remand. Donald Becker may also have the option to appeal certain aspects of the ruling, although the court did not specify any immediate further appeals in the opinion.