Background
Gary and Christina Dexter divorced after nearly eight years of marriage. The Adams County District Court entered permanent orders awarding Christina (wife) the marital home, a 2017 Land Rover, a $113,700 equalization payment, and $9,300 per month in maintenance for approximately three years. After permanent orders were entered, wife’s attorneys withdrew and filed a lien for unpaid fees of $164,000. Husband filed a timely Rule 59 post-trial motion alleging an error in the maintenance calculation, and the district court issued an amended order reducing monthly maintenance by 25 percent — from $9,300 to $6,960 — to account for the non-taxable nature of the award and to equitably allocate the associated tax burden. The court also directed both wife’s maintenance and equalization payments toward satisfying the outstanding attorney lien.
Wife, proceeding pro se, subsequently filed multiple motions alleging that her former attorneys acted unethically, that husband fraudulently concealed marital assets (including a McLaren, Lamborghini, GMC Denali, and other luxury vehicles), and that she was denied due process. The district court denied wife’s Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the amended order, finding she had not met Rule 60(b)’s standards, and denied her follow-on Rule 59 motion as untimely. Wife appealed both denials.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed across the board. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Husband’s post-trial Rule 59 motion was the proper procedural vehicle for correcting the maintenance calculation error, and no formal modification motion, updated financial disclosures, or evidentiary hearing was required. As to the attorney lien, the court relied on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Samuel J. Stoorman & Assocs., P.C. v. Dixon, 2017 CO 42, to confirm that the attorney lien statute (§ 13-93-114, C.R.S. 2025) allows an attorney’s charging lien to attach to both spousal maintenance and equalization payments that the attorney helped obtain, making the district court’s payment-direction order proper.
On wife’s claim that husband concealed marital assets, the court found no abuse of discretion. Wife’s evidence — photographs of luxury vehicles with temporary plates and records of tire purchases — did not establish that husband used marital funds to acquire the vehicles, and therefore did not satisfy the third prong of the newly-discovered-evidence test under Rule 59(d): that the evidence, if admitted, would probably have changed the result. Wife’s due process claim regarding an evidentiary hearing was not preserved below and could not be addressed on appeal. Claims of attorney misconduct were outside the jurisdiction of both the district court and the Court of Appeals; exclusive jurisdiction over such matters rests with the Colorado Supreme Court. The case was remanded solely for the district court to determine whether wife is entitled to appellate attorney fees under § 14-10-119 based on the parties’ disparity in financial resources.
Key Takeaways
- A timely Rule 59 post-trial motion is a sufficient procedural basis for a district court to correct a maintenance calculation error; no separate modification motion, updated financial affidavits, or evidentiary hearing is required.
- Under § 13-93-114 and Stoorman, an attorney’s charging lien may attach to both spousal maintenance awards and equalization payments that the attorney helped obtain, and a court may direct those payments directly to the lienholder.
- To set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence under Rule 59(d), a movant must show not only that the evidence was undiscoverable with reasonable diligence, but also that it would probably have changed the trial outcome — mere proof of asset possession, without evidence of marital-fund misuse, is insufficient.
- Allegations of attorney misconduct are outside the jurisdiction of both Colorado district courts and the Court of Appeals; the Colorado Supreme Court has exclusive authority over attorney discipline.
- Issues not raised and preserved in the district court — including due process claims tied to denial of an evidentiary hearing — cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the breadth of Colorado’s attorney lien statute, confirming that charging liens can reach both maintenance and equalization payments in dissolution proceedings — a significant practical consideration for family law attorneys managing fee arrangements and for clients navigating post-decree finances. Practitioners should counsel clients early that funds awarded through litigation may be subject to lien attachment before the client ever receives them.
The opinion also provides a useful reminder about the scope of Rule 59 in dissolution cases: a court retains authority to correct legal errors in its own permanent orders upon a timely post-trial motion, without the heavier procedural apparatus that governs post-decree modification proceedings. For pro se litigants, the case illustrates the appellate consequences of failing to preserve issues below and the limits of appellate courts’ jurisdiction over collateral grievances such as attorney misconduct.