Colorado Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Alimony Survives Remarriage
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed in May 2026 to decide whether spousal maintenance automatically ends when a recipient remarries, or whether broad "non-modification" language in a separation agreement overrides that statutory default. In Clark v. Clark, the court will settle years of conflicting Court of Appeals rulings affecting how every divorcing Colorado couple drafts maintenance terms.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Colorado Supreme Court granted review of whether maintenance survives a recipient's remarriage |
| When | Review granted May 22, 2026; underlying divorce finalized 2022 |
| Where | Colorado (statewide precedent) |
| Who's affected | Divorced and divorcing Coloradans with maintenance agreements |
| Key statute | C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2) — maintenance terminates on remarriage unless otherwise agreed |
| Impact | Resolves conflict over whether "express" language or "clear implication" is required to continue payments |
Why This Matters Legally
This case will establish the single statewide standard Colorado courts must use to decide when maintenance survives a recipient's remarriage. Right now, the law is genuinely unsettled. Colorado's maintenance statute, C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2), sets a default rule: spousal maintenance terminates automatically when the receiving spouse remarries, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. The entire dispute in Clark v. Clark turns on two words — "agreed otherwise."
The Clarks, who divorced in 2022, handwrote into their separation agreement that maintenance "may not be modified or terminated." According to Colorado Politics, Jessica Clark remarried roughly a year later, and the question became whether that broad non-modification clause was enough to override the statutory shut-off, or whether the agreement needed to say explicitly that payments would continue past remarriage. One line of Court of Appeals decisions demands "express" language naming remarriage; another accepts a "clear implication" from sweeping non-modification terms. The Supreme Court's answer will bind every trial court in the state.
How Colorado Law Handles This
Colorado treats remarriage as a default endpoint for maintenance, but it lets spouses contract around that rule. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2), maintenance "terminates upon the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance" unless the agreement or decree expressly provides otherwise. This is the statutory backdrop against which Clark v. Clark is being argued.
Colorado's broader maintenance framework lives in C.R.S. § 14-10-114, which since the 2014 statutory overhaul provides advisory guidelines for amount and duration in marriages of 3 to 20-plus years. Separately, C.R.S. § 14-10-122(1) governs modification, generally requiring a showing of "changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unfair." The tension in Clark is that a clause forbidding "modification" addresses the § 14-10-122(1) modification standard — but remarriage termination flows from the separate § 14-10-122(2) provision. The court must decide whether language aimed at one subsection silences the other. Until it rules, two divorcing Coloradans with identical handwritten clauses can get opposite outcomes depending on which appellate precedent a trial judge follows.
Practical Takeaways
Until the Colorado Supreme Court rules, anyone negotiating or drafting maintenance terms should not rely on general "non-modification" language to guarantee payments continue after remarriage. Here is what to do now:
- Say exactly what you mean. If you intend maintenance to survive remarriage, the agreement should state that in plain words — for example, "maintenance shall continue notwithstanding the recipient's remarriage." Do not assume "non-modifiable" carries that meaning.
- Distinguish modification from termination. Recognize that C.R.S. § 14-10-122(1) (modification) and C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2) (termination on remarriage) are separate provisions. Address each one explicitly.
- Review existing agreements. If you signed a separation agreement before 2026 with vague non-modification language, have a Colorado family law attorney review whether your terms match the standard the Supreme Court is about to set.
- Paying spouses should track remarriage. If you pay maintenance and your former spouse remarries, do not unilaterally stop payments — confirm your obligation under your specific agreement first, because the law is in flux.
- Avoid handwritten add-ons. The Clarks' dispute stems partly from a handwritten clause. Custom, attorney-drafted language reduces ambiguity and litigation risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does alimony automatically stop when you remarry in Colorado?
Yes. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2), spousal maintenance in Colorado terminates automatically upon the recipient's remarriage unless the parties expressly agreed otherwise in writing. The 2026 Clark v. Clark case will clarify exactly how explicit that written agreement must be to override this default rule.
What is Clark v. Clark about?
Clark v. Clark is a 2026 Colorado Supreme Court case deciding whether broad "non-modification" language continues maintenance after remarriage, or whether explicit remarriage language is required. The Clarks, divorced in 2022, handwrote that maintenance "may not be modified or terminated" before the recipient remarried about a year later.
What is the difference between 'express' and 'clear implication' standards?
The "express" standard requires an agreement to specifically name remarriage when continuing maintenance. The "clear implication" standard lets courts infer that intent from broad non-modification terms. Colorado's Court of Appeals has split between these tests, and the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Clark v. Clark will adopt one statewide.
How should I draft a maintenance agreement in Colorado now?
State your intent explicitly. If maintenance should survive remarriage, write that it "shall continue notwithstanding remarriage" rather than relying on "non-modifiable" language. Because C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2) is the default, ambiguous clauses risk termination. An attorney-drafted clause addressing both modification and termination reduces litigation risk.
When will the Colorado Supreme Court rule on Clark v. Clark?
The Colorado Supreme Court granted review on May 22, 2026, but no decision date is set. Appellate rulings of this kind typically follow briefing and oral argument over several months. Coloradans with maintenance agreements should monitor the outcome and review their terms in the meantime.
Talk to a Colorado Family Law Attorney
If you pay or receive spousal maintenance in Colorado, this pending decision could affect your agreement. A local family law attorney can review your separation terms and advise you before the Supreme Court sets the new standard.
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.