Background
Lizaveta Likhavitskaya and Alex Tarasov divorced after nearly two years of marriage and the birth of one child. Their January 2024 separation agreement provided that Tarasov would pay maintenance and child support, contemplated a later child-support modification after maintenance ended, and stated that each party would cover their own “past, present, and future” legal expenses. The district court incorporated the agreement into the April 2024 dissolution decree.
After maintenance ended, Likhavitskaya moved to modify child support and requested attorney fees under section 14-10-119, C.R.S. 2025. The parties settled child support at $819 per month, but disputed fees. Although Tarasov earned about $12,500 monthly and Likhavitskaya’s agreed income was $2,722 monthly, the district court found that the fee waiver barred the request and was not unconscionable.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying contract principles to the separation agreement, the court held that its unqualified reference to each party’s responsibility for “past, present, and future” legal expenses plainly covered the anticipated post-decree child-support modification. The agreement contained no language limiting the waiver to fees incurred in the original dissolution case.
The court also held that enforcing the waiver was not unconscionable. Attorney-fee waivers in marital agreements remain subject to review when enforcement is sought, particularly where a spouse lacks resources to litigate matters affecting children. But the record supported the district court’s findings that Likhavitskaya had received an equitable share of the marital estate, had sufficient resources to litigate, and held substantial cash and other assets. The court also denied her appellate-fee request because she provided no meaningful supporting analysis.
Key Takeaways
- A separation agreement’s broad waiver of “future” legal expenses can bar fees in a later, contemplated child-support modification.
- A disparity in income alone does not make an attorney-fee waiver unconscionable.
- Courts assess unconscionability when enforcement is sought, including whether a party has resources to litigate.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Colorado courts will enforce clear attorney-fee waivers in separation agreements according to their terms, including in post-decree proceedings when the agreement’s language is broad and the later proceeding was anticipated.
It also preserves the public-policy safeguard recognized in marital-agreement cases: a waiver may not be enforced if it would leave a spouse without the resources needed to litigate, especially in matters involving children.