In re Marriage of Carey.
2026 COA 3. No. 24CA2006. Colorado Rules for Magistrates—Review of District Court Magistrate Orders or Judgments—Orders or Judgments Entered When Consent Not Necessary—Finality.
January 15, 2026
The parties began residing together in 2010 and were married on August 15, 2023 (the ceremonial marriage). On September 6, 2023, husband, who was terminally ill, filed a petition to declare the ceremonial marriage invalid based on his alleged lack of mental capacity. Wife denied that husband lacked mental capacity and argued that she and husband were married under common law before the ceremonial marriage. Husband moved to bifurcate the issue of the validity of the marriage from the entry of permanent orders. A magistrate held a contested hearing on the validity of the parties’ ceremonial marriage, finding that the ceremonial marriage was valid and entering an order denying husband’s petition (the validity order). At the magistrate’s suggestion, husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage immediately after the hearing. At the conclusion of a second hearing, the magistrate determined that the parties were never common law married, found that the requirements for dissolving the ceremonial marriage had been met, and given husband’s illness, determined it was appropriate to enter a dissolution decree at that time but conduct permanent orders hearing later. On February 2, 2024, the magistrate memorialized her ruling on the common law marriage issue in a written and signed order, and entered a separate written and signed decree of dissolution. Husband died 12 days later. Wife petitioned under C.R.M. 7(a) for district court review of the common law marriage order and the dissolution decree, arguing that the magistrate erred by finding that no common law marriage existed and that the dissolution decree did not comply with statute. The district court purported to dismiss the petition but then reached the merits and affirmed the magistrate’s order. The magistrate then held a permanent orders hearing and found that husband’s assets were almost entirely separate property, which had not increased in value during the marriage. Ultimately, the magistrate allocated wife a portion of the marital estate valued at $8,815.
On appeal, wife challenged the magistrate’s determination that the parties were not common law married before their ceremonial marriage and the magistrate’s authority to enter the dissolution decree. The court of appeals initially determined whether wife’s challenges were properly before the court. As relevant here, the magistrate entered four separate written orders on three different dates: the validity order, the common law marriage order, the dissolution decree, and permanent orders. The first three orders are all governed by C.R.M. 6(b)(1)(A), meaning the magistrate had authority to preside over the hearings that led to those orders without the parties’ consent; and the parties consented to the magistrate conducting the permanent orders hearing. Under C.R.M. 7(a)(3), the first three orders were subject to district court review if they “fully resolve[d] an issue or claim,” meaning the magistrate no longer had authority to revisit the determination. Neither party appealed the magistrate’s resolution of husband’s invalidity claim. The common law marriage order and the dissolution decree were both written, dated, and signed at the conclusion of and resulting from a hearing, so the magistrate was without authority to revisit them. Here, the district court adopted the magistrate’s validity order, the common law marriage order, and the dissolution decree on June 5, 2024. At that point, issues concerning the existence and validity of the marriage, the date the marriage began, and the dissolution of the marriage were resolved. But permanent orders had not been entered, so without a valid order under CRCP 54(b), these orders were not final and appealable until permanent orders were entered resolving the remaining issues. This occurred when the magistrate issued the permanent orders on September 27, 2024, rendering that judgment and all the prior orders final and appealable. Because wife timely filed her appeal after the entry of that order, all the orders wife challenges were properly before the court.
Wife argued that the magistrate abused her discretion by concluding that the parties were not common law married before their ceremonial marriage. However, the magistrate’s findings have record support, and the magistrate applied the proper legal standards to her findings. Accordingly, she did not abuse her discretion by concluding there was no common law marriage.
Wife also contended that the dissolution decree is invalid because (1) the petition for dissolution was not properly filed or served; and (2) the magistrate erred by not waiting 91 days from proper service of the dissolution petition before entering the dissolution decree, as required by CRS § 14-10-106(1)(a)(III). First, husband commenced this proceeding by filing his petition for invalidity, which he personally served on wife, and she does not contest that fact. The petition commenced a title 14 proceeding and gave the court jurisdiction over subsequent pleadings and filings in the matter. Once husband filed the petition for dissolution, that matter was properly before the magistrate. Second, the court acquired jurisdiction over wife by personal service of the petition for invalidity on September 28, 2023. The court therefore had jurisdiction over wife for 127 days before the dissolution decree was issued, so the court’s order was consistent with the statute.
The judgment was affirmed.