Colorado Supreme Court to Decide If Alimony Ends at Remarriage (Clark)

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on May 22, 2026 to decide in In re Marriage of Clark whether ambiguous separation-agreement language can override Colorado's default rule that spousal maintenance ends when the recipient remarries. The dispute centers on a handwritten stipulation and a $108,000 support obligation, and the ruling will reshape how every Colorado separation agreement is drafted.

The underlying facts, as reported by Colorado Politics, are the kind of situation family lawyers warn against. A self-represented couple wrote their own maintenance stipulation: six years of support totaling roughly $108,000. The agreement said the award "may not be modified or terminated." About a year in, the recipient spouse remarried. The paying spouse stopped, arguing that remarriage automatically ends maintenance under Colorado law. The recipient argued the couple contracted out of that rule. Lower courts split, and now the state's highest court will settle it.

Why this matters legally

This case will decide whether a boilerplate non-modification phrase is enough to override a statutory default that most people never even see. In Colorado, spousal maintenance terminates automatically upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. That default rule under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2) exists for a reason: it prevents one spouse from subsidizing the other's new marriage.

The legal tension is between two principles. Colorado enforces private agreements — parties can absolutely waive automatic termination if they clearly say so. But courts also require that a waiver of a statutory default be unambiguous. The phrase "may not be modified or terminated" is doing double duty here. Does "terminated" refer only to court-ordered early termination for changed circumstances, or does it also lock in payments through remarriage and even death? Two Colorado judges read the same eleven words and reached opposite conclusions. That ambiguity is the whole case.

How Colorado law handles this

Colorado's maintenance statute sets a clear baseline: maintenance ends at remarriage unless the agreement expressly says it survives. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2), termination at remarriage is the rule, not the exception. Separately, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-114 governs how maintenance is calculated and awarded, including the advisory guideline formula the legislature adopted in 2014.

Colorado also treats separation agreements as binding contracts. Once the court approves a stipulation, its terms are generally enforced as written — a principle rooted in the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act that Colorado follows. The catch is that when contract language collides with a statutory default, courts must decide whether the parties actually intended to displace the default. A general non-modification clause does not automatically waive the specific remarriage-termination rule. Most well-drafted Colorado agreements address remarriage explicitly, using language like "maintenance shall continue regardless of the recipient's remarriage" or, conversely, "maintenance terminates upon remarriage or cohabitation." The Clark agreement did neither clearly, which is exactly why it reached the Supreme Court.

The likely outcome, based on how Colorado appellate courts have historically treated statutory waivers, is that the court will require clear and specific language to override the remarriage default. If the justices hold that "may not be modified or terminated" is too vague to waive § 14-10-122(2), maintenance in Clark ends at remarriage and thousands of similarly worded agreements become vulnerable to the same challenge. If they hold the phrase is broad enough, non-modifiable agreements will be read to survive remarriage by default. Either way, the ambiguity that currently exists disappears.

Practical takeaways

1. Read your own agreement now. If you pay or receive Colorado maintenance, find the section on modification and termination. If it does not explicitly say what happens at remarriage, you have the same gap the Clark parties did. Understanding spousal support modification rules helps you spot the risk.

2. Do not rely on handwritten or self-drafted stipulations for maintenance. The single biggest lesson from Clark is that eleven ambiguous words created years of litigation over $108,000. A properly drafted clause costs far less than an appeal.

3. If you are negotiating now, name remarriage directly. State plainly whether maintenance survives or terminates upon the recipient's remarriage and cohabitation. Silence defaults to termination under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2), but silence also breeds disputes.

4. Estimate what is actually at stake. Before you fight over language, run the numbers. Our alimony estimator for Colorado gives you a realistic sense of the guideline maintenance range so you know the dollar value of the clause you are negotiating.

5. Get advice before you sign or before you stop paying. If you stopped or received maintenance after a remarriage under a vague agreement, the Clark decision could directly affect you. Build a personalized divorce roadmap and, if the stakes justify it, find a divorce attorney to review the exact wording.

Colorado's maintenance rules reward precision and punish vagueness, and Clark is about to make that lesson binding statewide. To learn how support obligations work more broadly, see our overview of alimony and how child support interacts with it when children are involved. If you have an older agreement with unclear termination language, this is a good moment to have it reviewed before the court's ruling changes the landscape.

This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.