The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld a permanent protection order against Jun-Kyou Park in a case involving his ex-wife, Marjorie Grace Burge. The court's decision, announced on October 29, 2026, affects the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding their divorce and highlights the importance of adhering to court procedures during such cases.

The case, filed under docket number 25CA1500, stemmed from a post-dissolution proceeding in which Park appealed a district court order that denied his petition for review of a magistrate's decision. The court ruled that Park's appeal lacked merit and affirmed the previous ruling, which had granted Burge a permanent protection order against him.

Background

Marjorie Grace Burge and Jun-Kyou Park were involved in a divorce proceeding when Burge sought a civil protection order against Park. The magistrate initially issued a temporary protection order and scheduled a hearing for a permanent order. However, just days before the hearing, Burge requested an extension to the hearing's duration, which the magistrate acknowledged but did not have time to address on the scheduled date.

On the night before the hearing, Burge moved to continue the hearing. The magistrate, however, proceeded with the hearing without addressing this request, later deeming it moot. Park did not attend the hearing, resulting in the magistrate issuing a permanent protection order against him by default.

Following this, Park filed a motion for reconsideration, which the magistrate denied, stating a lack of jurisdiction. He then filed a petition for district court review of the magistrate's permanent protection order, claiming he deserved a new hearing. The district court ultimately ruled that Park had not properly petitioned for review and adopted the magistrate's order as its final ruling.

The Ruling

The Colorado Court of Appeals, led by Judge Yun, affirmed the district court's decision. The court noted that Park's appeal failed to comply with the Colorado Appellate Rules, specifically regarding the presentation of arguments and citation of legal authority. Despite these shortcomings, the court opted to consider Park's arguments on their merits.

“We expect parties to read, be familiar with, and comply with the Colorado Appellate Rules,” the court stated, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence.

In its ruling, the court addressed Park's claim that the magistrate violated his due process rights by issuing the protection order by default. The court found this argument underdeveloped and noted that it could not be properly evaluated without sufficient legal citations.

Furthermore, the court examined Park's claims regarding the district court's reliance on case law and his arguments under Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 60(b). The court concluded that the district court did not err in its decision and that Park's claims were either premature or unsupported by the record.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for future divorce and protection order cases in Colorado. It underscores the necessity for individuals involved in such legal proceedings to follow court rules and procedures closely. Failure to do so may result in unfavorable outcomes, as seen in Park's case.

This decision also reinforces the authority of magistrates and district courts to issue protection orders and the importance of due process in such matters. The court's affirmation of the protection order indicates that the legal system takes allegations of domestic violence seriously and will uphold protective measures when warranted.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Park plans to appeal this decision further. However, given the court's ruling, it appears that the protection order will remain in effect unless successfully challenged in a higher court.