The Colorado Supreme Court agreed in May 2026 to hear In re Marriage of Clark, resolving whether spousal maintenance automatically terminates when a recipient remarries under C.R.S. § 14-10-122(5), or whether vague separation-agreement language can override that default rule. The decision will reshape how every Colorado separation agreement is drafted.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a lower-court split on maintenance and remarriage |
| When | Certiorari granted May 2026; briefing underway |
| Where | Colorado (statewide) |
| Who's affected | Divorced payors and recipients with separation agreements; family law drafters |
| Key statute | C.R.S. § 14-10-122 (modification and termination of maintenance) |
| Impact | Determines whether ambiguous non-modification language can lock in payments after an ex remarries |
Why this matters legally
This case will settle a genuine conflict in Colorado law about whether contract language or statute controls when a maintenance recipient remarries. Under Colorado's default rule at C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2), spousal maintenance terminates automatically upon the remarriage of the party receiving support unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. The dispute in Clark centers on how clear that written agreement must be.
Divorcing parties routinely include boilerplate stating that maintenance "may not be modified or terminated." The question the Supreme Court accepted is whether that generic non-modification clause is specific enough to override the remarriage-termination default, or whether it merely bars mid-term modifications of the amount while leaving the remarriage trigger intact. Colorado's Court of Appeals panels have split on this point, producing inconsistent outcomes for similarly situated payors across the state.
The stakes are concrete. A payor who believed maintenance would end on his ex-spouse's remarriage could instead face years of continued payments if the court reads ambiguous language against him. Conversely, a recipient who negotiated genuine security could lose it if the court demands near-magic-word precision. Because roughly 10-15% of maintenance recipients remarry within a few years of divorce, the ruling affects a substantial share of Colorado's active support orders.
How Colorado law handles this
Colorado law starts from a clear statutory default: maintenance ends on the recipient's remarriage. C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2) provides that, unless the parties agree otherwise in a written separation agreement, the obligation to pay future maintenance terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance. This has been the baseline rule for decades and reflects the theory that maintenance addresses financial need arising from the prior marriage, not lifelong entitlement.
Two statutory provisions frame the Clark dispute. First, C.R.S. § 14-10-122(1) governs modification of maintenance and allows courts to change awards on a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unfair. Parties can, however, contractually make maintenance non-modifiable. Second, subsection (2) supplies the remarriage-termination default. The tension arises because a clause labeled "non-modifiable" arguably speaks to subsection (1) modification, not subsection (2) termination — yet drafters often use the two words interchangeably.
Colorado courts interpret separation agreements under ordinary contract principles, giving effect to the parties' mutual intent as expressed in the plain language. C.R.S. § 14-10-112 makes the terms of a separation agreement binding on the court unless unconscionable. When language is ambiguous, courts look to the agreement as a whole and to extrinsic evidence of intent. Clark will tell practitioners whether generic "non-modification" wording carries the weight to displace the statutory remarriage cutoff, or whether an explicit reference to remarriage and post-remarriage continuation is required.
Practical takeaways
-
Review your separation agreement now if you pay or receive maintenance. Look specifically for whether it mentions remarriage. Language addressing modification of the amount is not the same as language addressing termination on remarriage.
-
Payors should not assume payments automatically stop when an ex remarries. If your agreement contains any "may not be modified or terminated" language, consult a Colorado family law attorney before halting payments — unilateral non-payment can expose you to a contempt finding and arrears.
-
Recipients relying on continued maintenance after a possible remarriage should confirm the agreement says so explicitly. A vague clause may not survive the Clark ruling if the Court demands specific reference to remarriage.
-
Anyone currently negotiating a divorce settlement should insist on precise drafting. State clearly whether maintenance ends on remarriage under C.R.S. § 14-10-122(2) or continues notwithstanding remarriage, and say so in plain terms.
-
Watch for the decision. A ruling is expected in 2026 or early 2027. It could apply to existing agreements, so a favorable or unfavorable interpretation may change your obligations without any new negotiation.
If you are unsure how your maintenance order or separation agreement would fare under the standard the Colorado Supreme Court is about to set, it is worth having the actual language reviewed by a family law attorney licensed in Colorado. Small differences in wording can mean years of payments — in either direction.
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.