Background
After twelve years of marriage, Aaron Wells Sager and Christine Daly Sager entered a separation agreement providing that each would receive their respective retirement benefits. They agreed to hire a joint expert to prepare orders dividing husband’s military retired pay.
Three years later, wife sought an order under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 70 directing the court clerk to sign proposed retirement-benefit orders for husband. Husband responded that he was not refusing to execute appropriate orders but that unresolved disputes remained, including proposed changes to the military-retirement order. The district court granted wife’s motion without a hearing, directed the clerk to sign the proposed military retired pay order, and awarded wife attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction because husband’s postjudgment motion included arguments properly construed under Rule 59; those arguments were deemed denied after the district court failed to rule within sixty-three days. The court did not consider husband’s separate Rule 60 arguments because they remained pending below.
The court reversed the Rule 70 order and the deemed denial of husband’s Rule 59 motion. Husband’s response had put the district court on notice that factual disputes remained over the proposed order’s calculation of retired pay, the formula for wife’s share, and survivor-benefit-plan coverage. By entering wife’s proposed order without a hearing, findings, or an explanation of its legal basis, the district court abused its discretion and left an insufficient record for appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- A court may not resolve disputed terms of a military-retirement division order without addressing the parties’ factual and legal disagreements.
- Rule 59 arguments seeking correction of an order may be deemed denied after sixty-three days, even when a filing also raises unresolved Rule 60 issues.
- On remand, the district court must hold a hearing and resolve the remaining disputes before entering a new military retired pay order.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a proposed QDRO or military retired pay order cannot be treated as stipulated when the record reveals unresolved disputes about its terms. Trial courts must create findings adequate to permit appellate review before using Rule 70 to execute a contested property-division instrument.
The court denied wife’s request for appellate fees under the appellate rules because she did not prevail, but directed the district court to consider her statutory fee request on remand.