Background
Rebecca Boggs and Tiffany Timbric (formerly Chadwick Boggs) married in 2012, separated shortly thereafter, and filed for dissolution in 2016. Because Timbric significantly outearned Boggs at the time of dissolution, she was ordered to pay child support and spousal maintenance. Timbric failed to keep up with those obligations, accumulating approximately $174,000 in arrears by February 2025.
In February 2025, the parties participated in court-ordered mediation and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which the district court adopted as an order. Under the MOU, Boggs agreed to waive $85,000 of the arrears in exchange for Timbric paying $4,000 per month going forward. The MOU also provided a reduced payment schedule of $2,500 per month during any period in which Timbric was unemployed or between contracts for up to six consecutive months, with a requirement to make up the shortfall within four months of returning to employment. Critically, the MOU stated that the $85,000 waiver would be automatically reinstated if Timbric failed to meet the reduced payment obligations during those unemployment periods.
Timbric defaulted almost immediately, failing to make the required payment by the end of February 2025. Boggs notified Timbric of her intent to reinstate the $85,000 and filed a motion with the court to enforce reinstatement. Timbric argued that the reinstatement provision applied only to defaults occurring during periods of unemployment, not to defaults while she was employed. A district court magistrate agreed and denied Boggs’s motion; the district court affirmed on review. Boggs appealed pro se.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the MOU’s plain language limits automatic reinstatement of the waived $85,000 arrears to defaults occurring during periods when Timbric is unemployed or between contracts — not to defaults occurring while she is employed. The court conducted a de novo review of the written agreement and concluded it was unambiguous.
The court focused on Paragraph 6 of the MOU, which was the only operative paragraph setting forth reinstatement triggers. That paragraph plainly linked reinstatement to defaults during unemployment or gaps between contracts, and its use of the definite article “the reinstatement” tied the reinstatement mechanism specifically to those limited circumstances. The court rejected Boggs’s argument that the phrase “based on the agreements made herein” extended reinstatement to any default under the MOU, noting that if the parties intended broader reinstatement, they would have included such language in the paragraphs governing Timbric’s payment obligations while employed. Paragraph 7, which outlines the procedural steps for triggering reinstatement, was held to be procedural only and not an independent source of substantive reinstatement rights.
The court also rejected Boggs’s absurdity argument, finding that the district court’s interpretation did not leave Boggs without a remedy — she retained the ability to pursue contempt or other enforcement mechanisms for defaults occurring during employment. The court declined to award Timbric appellate attorney fees, finding that although Boggs’s briefing was deficient and her appeal unsuccessful, she had presented rational arguments and had not acted frivolously or in bad faith.
Key Takeaways
- In Colorado, automatic reinstatement provisions in mediated divorce MOUs will be construed according to their plain language; courts will not expand reinstatement triggers beyond those expressly stated in the agreement.
- A procedural paragraph governing how to invoke a remedy does not enlarge the substantive circumstances under which that remedy is available — substance and procedure must be read independently.
- A party who negotiates an $85,000 waiver with a reinstatement clause limited to unemployment periods retains other enforcement options (e.g., contempt) for defaults occurring during employment, but cannot invoke automatic reinstatement outside those defined conditions.
- An unsuccessful appeal is not automatically frivolous; Colorado courts will deny fee awards under § 13-17-102(4) where the appellant advanced rational, albeit unpersuasive, legal arguments.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision is a practical reminder for family law practitioners drafting settlement MOUs and negotiating arrears-waiver agreements: reinstatement triggers must be written with surgical precision. If a creditor-spouse intends the waiver to be forfeited upon any payment default — not just defaults during unemployment — that intent must be stated explicitly in the paragraphs governing the debtor-spouse’s general payment obligations, not buried in a clause addressing a limited contingency.
The case also illustrates the limits of “whole-instrument” interpretation arguments. Colorado courts will resist attempts to use a general cross-reference clause (“based on the agreements made herein”) to effectively rewrite a narrowly scoped provision, particularly when the structure and definite-article usage of the agreement signals a limited scope. Attorneys negotiating arrears compromises in dissolution proceedings should ensure that the reinstatement mechanism mirrors their client’s actual intent across all payment scenarios.