Colorado Supreme Court to Decide Alimony After Remarriage (Clark)

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed in May 2026 to decide whether spousal maintenance automatically ends when the recipient remarries, or whether vague separation-agreement language can override the default rule under C.R.S. § 14-10-122(1). In In re Marriage of Clark, lower courts split over whether the phrase "may not be modified or terminated" is enough to keep payments flowing. The outcome will reshape how every Colorado separation agreement is drafted.

This case matters because maintenance is one of the largest recurring financial obligations in a Colorado divorce, and remarriage is one of the most common life events that triggers a fight over it. According to reporting by Colorado Politics, the high court will resolve a decades-long conflict in Colorado appellate precedent about exactly how explicit divorcing spouses must be when they want maintenance to survive a recipient's remarriage.

Key Facts

Why this matters legally

This appeal will replace a confusing split in Colorado precedent with a single, statewide rule about when maintenance survives remarriage. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-122(1), spousal maintenance ordinarily terminates automatically when the receiving spouse remarries, unless the divorce decree or separation agreement says otherwise. The hard question the court must answer is what "says otherwise" actually requires.

The Clark dispute illustrates the problem cleanly. According to Colorado Politics, the self-represented couple wrote in their agreement that maintenance "may not be modified or terminated." The ex-husband stopped paying when his ex-wife remarried, arguing the statutory default controlled. Lower Colorado courts disagreed on whether that boilerplate language overrode the automatic-termination rule, or whether the parties needed to expressly mention remarriage.

Two competing legal tests are now on the table. One camp requires express remarriage language — the agreement must specifically state that maintenance continues even if the recipient remarries. The other camp accepts a "clear implication" standard, where broad non-termination language can be read to defeat the statutory default. The Supreme Court's choice between these tests will determine the outcome in thousands of existing agreements that used imprecise wording.

How Colorado law handles this

Colorado law starts from a default rule of automatic termination, then lets spouses contract around it. C.R.S. § 14-10-122(1) provides that maintenance terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance, unless the decree or a written agreement provides otherwise. This is the baseline every Colorado divorce begins from.

The modification framework adds another layer. Colorado generally allows maintenance to be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the existing terms unfair, and spouses can make maintenance non-modifiable by agreement under Colorado's maintenance statutes. The Clark problem arises because parties sometimes conflate two distinct concepts: making maintenance non-modifiable in amount, and making maintenance non-terminable on remarriage. Saying payments "may not be modified or terminated" arguably addresses both — or neither, depending on which test the court adopts.

Colorado courts interpret separation agreements like contracts, giving effect to the parties' intent as expressed in the plain language. When language is ambiguous, courts look to surrounding circumstances. The In re Marriage of Clark appeal forces a precise ruling: does Colorado require magic words about remarriage, or will a general non-termination clause carry the day? Until the Colorado Supreme Court rules, drafters cannot safely rely on broad language alone, because the answer currently depends on which appellate decision a trial judge follows.

Practical takeaways

Whatever the Colorado Supreme Court decides, the safest course is to draft maintenance terms that leave nothing to interpretation. Here are concrete steps for Colorado residents now negotiating or living under a maintenance order.

1. Use express remarriage language. If you intend maintenance to continue after the recipient remarries, state it directly: "Maintenance shall continue notwithstanding the remarriage of the recipient." Do not rely on general phrases like "may not be modified or terminated."

2. Separate the two concepts in writing. Address modifiability of the amount and termination on remarriage as distinct provisions, so a court does not have to guess whether one clause was meant to cover both.

3. Review existing agreements. If your Colorado separation agreement uses vague non-termination language and remarriage is on the horizon for either spouse, have it reviewed before the wedding, not after a missed payment.

4. Document intent at signing. Contemporaneous notes or recitals explaining what the parties intended can help if a court must resolve ambiguity under the standard the Supreme Court ultimately announces.

5. Do not stop paying unilaterally. A payor who stops maintenance based on a remarriage, before a court confirms termination, risks a contempt finding and arrears. Seek a ruling first.

6. Watch for the decision. The eventual ruling in In re Marriage of Clark may change how your existing order is enforced, especially if your language is ambiguous. A timely review after the opinion issues can prevent surprises.

If you are negotiating a separation agreement in Colorado, or you are facing a maintenance dispute tied to a remarriage, this is a moment where precise drafting and timely legal review can save years of litigation. A Colorado family law attorney can audit your language against the standard the Supreme Court is about to set.

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.