Background
Cristina Anderson and Edward Volovlek divorced in Michigan in 2007. After registering the Michigan decree in Colorado, the parties entered a 2010 stipulation setting father’s child support obligation at $522 per month. Father made only three small payments after late 2015, ultimately accumulating approximately $79,000 in child support arrears plus approximately $8,000 in unpaid medical expenses for the parties’ child.
In June 2024, mother moved for both remedial and punitive contempt. After a hearing, the Pitkin County District Court declined to impose punitive sanctions but found father in remedial contempt. The court determined that father had the present ability to pay, citing his self-employment income and at least $180,000 in home equity he himself acknowledged. As a remedial sanction, the court imposed a $100-per-day fine until father paid $90,888.90 in child support arrears with statutory interest and $7,773.24 in medical expenses, with a roughly two-and-a-half-month grace period before accrual. The court also awarded mother $11,474.86 in attorney fees under C.R.C.P. 107(d)(2). Father, proceeding pro se, appealed.
On appeal, father raised multiple challenges: that the court improperly imputed income to him, overvalued his home equity, imposed a punitive rather than remedial sanction, and erred in awarding attorney fees without equitably apportioning them under the domestic relations fee statute. He also raised several contentions the Court of Appeals found unpreserved, including due process objections to admitted evidence, the validity of the 2010 stipulation, and a claimed defense based on mother’s alleged noncompliance with financial-disclosure provisions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the remedial contempt order in full. On the income-imputation issue, the court found any error harmless: the district court imputed minimum-wage income of roughly $26,000 per year, which was actually lower than the approximately $36,000 father admitted earning — a discrepancy that could not have prejudiced him. On home equity, the record supported the lower court’s finding because father himself “absolutely” agreed he had at least $180,000 in accessible equity. The court also rejected the argument that the $100-per-day fine was punitive, holding it was plainly remedial because it was tied to a specific, purgeable act — full payment of the arrears — and the court was aware of no authority requiring a stated termination date or a more limited purge condition.
On attorney fees, the court held that C.R.C.P. 107(d)(2) — not the domestic relations fee-equalization statute, § 14-10-119 — governs fees awarded in connection with a contempt proceeding. Because mother prevailed in defending the appeal of the contempt order, the appellate fees and costs she incurred are themselves costs “in connection with the contempt proceedings” under Rule 107(d)(2), entitling her to an award. The court remanded for the district court to determine the amount of reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs.
The court declined to reach three of father’s arguments — a due process claim regarding exhibit access, a challenge to the validity of the 2010 stipulation, and a claimed defense based on mother’s alleged noncompliance with the stipulation — because none were raised before the district court and were therefore unpreserved for appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- For remedial contempt, imputing income below the contemnor’s actual earnings is harmless error; the relevant inquiry is present ability to pay, and a party cannot claim prejudice from a finding less demanding than the facts support.
- A daily fine that ceases upon full payment of arrears is a remedial — not punitive — sanction; Colorado law does not require a stated termination date or an additional purge condition beyond the act of compliance itself.
- Attorney fees in contempt proceedings are governed exclusively by C.R.C.P. 107(d)(2), not by the domestic relations equitable-apportionment statute; appellate fees incurred defending a contempt order on appeal fall within that rule.
- The court flagged that three case citations in father’s pro se brief appeared to be fabricated hallucinations consistent with generative AI use, warning that future filings containing AI-generated errors could result in brief-striking, dismissal, or other sanctions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Colorado courts will sustain open-ended daily fines as permissible remedial contempt sanctions in child support enforcement, so long as the contemnor retains the present ability to pay and a clear path to purge exists. Practitioners advising obligors in contempt proceedings should note that home equity a client concedes is accessible will be treated as a current resource, and that imputed income below actual income carries no appellate weight.
The opinion also adds to a growing body of Colorado appellate authority cautioning self-represented — and, by implication, represented — litigants about the dangers of submitting AI-generated legal briefs without rigorous verification. The court’s explicit warning that fabricated citations may trigger sanctions under C.A.R. 38(a), including dismissal, signals that Colorado appellate courts are prepared to treat AI hallucinations in filings as a disciplinary matter, not merely a credibility problem.