The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on May 22, 2026 to decide in Clark v. Clark whether a divorce agreement must "expressly" state that spousal maintenance continues after remarriage, or whether a "clear implication" suffices. The ruling, involving a handwritten non-modification clause and $108,000 in disputed payments, will affect the three-quarters of Colorado divorce litigants who represent themselves.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Colorado Supreme Court granted review of a maintenance-after-remarriage dispute |
| When | Certiorari granted May 22, 2026 |
| Where | Colorado (statewide precedent) |
| Who's affected | ~75% of Colorado domestic relations litigants who are self-represented |
| Key statute | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122 (modification and termination of maintenance) |
| Impact | Resolves a decades-old appellate split over whether maintenance survives remarriage by "express" terms or "clear implication" |
The case, reported by Colorado Politics, centers on a couple who handwrote their own separation agreement. The agreement included a non-modification clause, but did not state in plain words that maintenance would continue if the recipient spouse remarried. After the ex-wife remarried, the ex-husband stopped paying, arguing that Colorado's default rule terminated his obligation. Roughly $108,000 in maintenance is now at stake.
Why This Matters Legally
This case will set a single statewide standard for when spousal maintenance survives the recipient's remarriage. Colorado's default rule under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2) terminates maintenance automatically when the receiving spouse remarries, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. The dispute is about how clearly that agreement must be expressed.
Colorado's appellate courts have split on this question for decades. One line of authority requires parties to state expressly that maintenance continues past remarriage. Another accepts a "clear implication" drawn from the agreement as a whole — for example, a non-modification clause combined with a fixed-term payment schedule. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Clark v. Clark will eliminate this uncertainty by choosing one test for all trial courts to apply.
The stakes extend far beyond one couple. Because an estimated 75% of Colorado domestic relations litigants proceed without an attorney, many separation agreements are drafted by non-lawyers who do not know that remarriage terminates maintenance by default. A ruling favoring the "clear implication" test would protect recipients who intended lifetime or fixed-term support but failed to use precise language. A ruling requiring "express" terms would enforce the statutory default strictly, ending payments for many recipients whose agreements are silent on remarriage.
How Colorado Law Handles This
Colorado law presumes maintenance ends at remarriage unless the agreement says otherwise. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2), the obligation to pay future maintenance terminates upon the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance — unless the parties agree in writing to the contrary. This default rule has governed Colorado divorces for years and reflects the policy that a new marriage typically creates a new source of financial support.
The escape hatch is contractual. Colorado allows divorcing spouses to override the default by agreement, and courts treat separation agreements as binding contracts under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-112. A properly drafted agreement can make maintenance non-modifiable and non-terminable, surviving both remarriage and changed circumstances. The problem in Clark v. Clark is that the handwritten agreement used a non-modification clause without spelling out the remarriage consequence — leaving courts to decide whether the parties' broader intent should control.
Colorado courts interpret separation agreements using ordinary contract principles: they look to the plain language first, then to the agreement as a whole to determine intent. The "clear implication" approach fits this framework by reading the non-modification clause alongside the payment terms. The "express" approach treats maintenance termination as a default the parties can waive only with unmistakable language. Clark v. Clark forces the Supreme Court to reconcile these two interpretive methods.
Practical Takeaways
-
State the remarriage rule expressly in any separation agreement. Write a sentence such as "Maintenance shall continue regardless of the recipient's remarriage" or "Maintenance shall terminate upon remarriage." Do not rely on a non-modification clause to imply your intent.
-
Understand the default before you sign. In Colorado, maintenance ends at remarriage automatically under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2) unless your written agreement says otherwise. Silence favors the paying spouse.
-
Distinguish "non-modifiable" from "non-terminable." A clause barring modification of the amount does not necessarily prevent termination by operation of law. If you want payments to survive remarriage, address remarriage by name.
-
Have a lawyer review a handwritten or self-drafted agreement before filing. The disputed $108,000 in Clark v. Clark traces directly to imprecise drafting. A single reviewed sentence could have prevented years of litigation.
-
If you are already living under a silent agreement, get advice now. Whether maintenance survives remarriage in your case may depend on how the Supreme Court rules in Clark v. Clark. Document your original intent while the agreement and circumstances are fresh.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does alimony automatically stop when you remarry in Colorado?
Yes. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2), maintenance terminates automatically when the receiving spouse remarries, unless the written separation agreement states otherwise. The Clark v. Clark case, with $108,000 at stake, will decide how clearly that contrary agreement must be expressed.
What is the Clark v. Clark case about?
Clark v. Clark is a Colorado Supreme Court case accepted for review on May 22, 2026. It concerns whether a separation agreement must "expressly" state maintenance continues after remarriage, or whether a "clear implication" suffices. The dispute involves a handwritten agreement and roughly $108,000 in unpaid maintenance.
Can you write your own divorce agreement in Colorado?
Yes. Colorado permits self-represented couples to draft separation agreements, and about 75% of domestic relations litigants proceed without attorneys. However, agreements are interpreted as binding contracts under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-112, so imprecise language — as in Clark v. Clark — can trigger costly litigation.
How do I make alimony continue after remarriage in Colorado?
State it expressly in writing. Include a clear sentence such as "Maintenance shall continue regardless of the recipient's remarriage." Because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-122(2) terminates maintenance at remarriage by default, a non-modification clause alone may not be enough — which is the central question in Clark v. Clark.
When will the Colorado Supreme Court rule on Clark v. Clark?
The Court granted certiorari on May 22, 2026, but has not announced a decision date. Colorado Supreme Court rulings typically follow several months after briefing and oral argument. Until then, lower courts remain split on whether maintenance survives remarriage by "express" terms or "clear implication."
Need Help With a Colorado Maintenance Agreement?
If your divorce agreement is silent on remarriage, or you drafted it yourself, a Colorado family law attorney can review the language and explain how Clark v. Clark may affect you. Browse our directory to connect with an exclusive Colorado attorney in your county.
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.