Divorce at Altitude: A Podcast on Colorado Family Law
Divorce at Altitude: A Podcast on Colorado Family Law
C.R.C.P. Overhaul: Practical Impacts on Divorce, APR, and Post-Decree Practice | Episode 230
Welcome back to Divorce at Altitude with host Ryan Kalamaya! In this episode, Ryan is joined by co-host and seasoned family law attorney Amy Goscha to break down the most significant proposed changes to Colorado’s family law rules in over a decade. After spending two years working on the Colorado Supreme Court's Family Issues Committee, Amy offers a behind-the-scenes look at how these reforms aim to modernize and streamline the family law process.
Whether you're a legal professional or navigating a family law matter in Colorado, this episode provides essential insight into what’s changing, why it matters, and how you can submit your feedback before the rules are finalized.
Episode Highlights
Why Change Was Needed:
• How family law differs from other civil disputes
• Addressing Colorado’s growing pro se population and increasing court efficiency
Key Rule Updates:
• Streamlined disclosures (pay stubs, trusts, real estate, etc.)
• Merging and simplifying Rule 16.2 and Rule 26 for clarity
• Clearer standards for expert disclosures and procedures
Contempt & Attorney Fees:
• Expanded scenarios for awarding attorney’s fees
• New guidance for enforcing court orders more effectively
Special Topics Covered:
• Updates on Guardian ad Litem (GAL) appointments and expectations
• Proposed informal trial process for pro se parties
• Clarified procedures for CFIs and PREs, including virtual appearances and depositions
Key Takeaways
• Simplified, Transparent Rules: Less duplication, clearer expectations, and better access for all parties
• Modernized Processes: Improved rules for GALs, experts, and contempt proceedings
• Call for Public Input: Comment deadline is April 25, 2025, with a public hearing on May 1, 2025
📞 Connect with Us
Facebook: Kalamaya | Goscha
LinkedIn: Kalamaya | Goscha
Phone: 970.315.2365
Email: info@kalamaya.law
What is Divorce at Altitude?
Ryan Kalamaya and Amy Goscha provide tips and recommendations on issues related to divorce, separation, and co-parenting in Colorado. Ryan and Amy are the founding partners of an innovative and ambitious law firm, Kalamaya | Goscha, that pushes the boundaries to discover new frontiers in family law, personal injuries, and criminal defense in Colorado.
To subscribe to Divorce at Altitude, click here and select your favorite podcast player. To subscribe to Kalamaya | Goscha's YouTube channel where many of the episodes will be posted as videos, click here. If you have additional questions or would like to speak to one of our attorneys, give us a call at 970-429-5784 or email us at info@kalamaya.law.
************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: THE COMMENTARY AND OPINIONS ON THIS PODCAST IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE OR AREA TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES.
Welcome back to another episode of Divorce at Altitude. This is Ryan Kalamaya. This week I am joined by my lovely co-host, Amy and we're gonna talk about some geeky legal rule changes. Amy, how you doing today?
Amy Gosha:I'm great. Yeah. This project I have been working on for two years, so it's pretty exciting that it's finally happening. But you're right, it's very geeky. It's very into the weeds, but we want to let Coloradans know what's coming.'cause it does affect this area.
Ryan Kalamaya:Indeed. When we listeners who have heard various other episodes we've talked about Eric Wolf and Melanie Wolf, our hypothetical divorce clients, they've also heard us talk about rule 16.2 and Rule 16.2 is the roadmap in what divorce lawyers and family law attorneys rely on. Or talk about all the time. And but there's these changes in one aspect. I'm on a committee of subcommittee on Innovative Child practices committee, and it's talking about how we can change the court system to better. Manage issues involving kids, and we'll talk about that in a different episode. But this overall, Amy you, can you give some context to what these changes what are the motivation for these changes? And then we'll get into what the proposed changes are.
Amy Gosha:Yeah, the motivation for these changes is that there's a realization and it really has come from, I think, the Supreme Court in Colorado just recognizing that family law families are different and need to be treated different in the court system. And we have what are called the civil rules of procedure, which apply to all like civil cases. So that could be like a very big. Civil dispute where there's, like a two week trial, whereas the issues that need to be resolved by the court are different when families come into the courtroom. And so this is a recognition that families need rules that are different than just, that are applied in all civil cases. So that was the impetus. To why this was started.
Ryan Kalamaya:And I think for listeners, even to go even higher level, there are rules on, for example, when you file a lawsuit, there's, there are rules about how big the font is for the pleading and what a pleading is. So there's a complaint and it will say that you have to put your name and the attorney and the registration number, and then it also gets into, after. A particular time, then you have to disclose information. So what witnesses or what documents are relevant. And then when you set a trial, there are deadlines by which you have to do exhibits the documents, the evidence, and these various rules, they are, you call the rules of civil procedure. And so we have these rules. And rule 16.2 it says that parties generally have a duty of full and fair disclosure and to be transparent with one another. But Amy, what you are saying is that these rules that we have, this one, 16.2, this is specific to family law, but other states and maybe you can talk about how other states they even expand beyond just that rule 16.2 concept and that they have. Even more rules that are specific to. Families and aren't, related to a construction defect or a personal injury case. Or and, listeners, there's even separate rules for criminal cases about when you have to set a trial and speedy trial and all these different things. And so we're trying to create these different roles. So what are other states doing Amy and how did that go into the project that you've worked on?
Amy Gosha:Yeah, so there are several states around the us not a ton, but some, especially we looked at Arizona who has their specific rule, family rules of procedure, and they enacted theirs in 2006. And so my committee, how I got involved in this, and in Colorado we have the Supreme Court has various committees and I sit on the family issues committee. And so we were tasked. Within that committee to look at trends around the nation and what can we do in Colorado to try to make it easier not only for attorneys dealing with this area, but also for people who don't have attorneys coming through the court system. Because in Colorado we've had. A pro se crisis for a long time where there's been 75% of the people. The people that come into the courtroom are not represented by counsel and attorneys have been complaining about judges not having time to hear their important matters. And so there was just a. A push finally to say, we're at a breaking point. How can we do this better? So we looked at Arizona, they've had their rules for almost 20 years. They've made updates and it's very well received by the courts and by the attorneys and the bar. And it's made everything more efficient. And it's easier to understand when you're coming into a courtroom, you know what's expected before you get there. So that was really the impetus. Behind Colorado really spending a lot of energy and time, coming up with can we write a procedure code that can clarify a lot of things that need to be clarified, like disclosures. We have, Ryan had mentioned 16.2, which is related just to family law, but then we also have a Rule 16, and there's also a Rule 26. And so when you're looking at all of those together, it can get pretty confusing. And there's duplicative lang language that just could have been cleaned up. And so that's what we did.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah. And I, for people that are viewing this we've got a slideshow that Amy, that you and Jordan Fox had created in PowerPoint, and there were seven subcommittees that were formed as part of this process. You've got the new and post decree in terms of getting started, case management motions, practice discovery and disclosures, hearings and evidence enforcement, post judgment and appeals and alternative dispute resolution and other professionals. Amy, can you maybe talk about some of the people that were involved, as on this other committee along with you and Jordan?
Amy Gosha:Sure the chair of the committee was Justice Hart. She's a Supreme Court justice here in Colorado. We had a lot of judges, attorneys, court facilitators, as an example. The getting started committee, I was on that with Alana Billings, who is a court facilitator in the ninth. I also had, another family law attorney, judges. I was in charge of the a DR and other professionals committee, and I had on that, not just attorneys. I pulled in. Like Gina Whitehorn, who is a previous family law attorney, and she did CFI work as well, we had people that worked for the courts. We had the head of office of dispute resolution. So we had a lot of different perspectives working on these committees to make sure that we didn't miss, a perspective and
Ryan Kalamaya:yeah. And Amy, you've asked there, there's used to you guys finalized the kind of proposed family rules after two years. They're available for comments. We're recording this in early April. The deadline to submit comments is April 25th by 4:00 PM 4:00 PM there's going to be a public hearing on May 1st 2025. There's links. And we'll have it in the show notes and for, viewers, they can see it here. In terms of where you can view the all of the nitty gritty, the actual rule changes. Let's dive into just the high level. Can you maybe Amy talk about disclosures and discovery and what changes or things, whether people are. An attorney, a professional where they're involved in family law or, one thing I've current, I've heard a fair amount is, for, from clients is this system is rigged against me or I don't understand why is this system the way that it is? And maybe with that kind of in mind, talk about the disclosures and discovery changes.
Amy Gosha:Yeah, so what we really wanted to do is we decided that there needed to be an overhaul of 16.2, which is the Mandatory Disclosure Rule in Colorado for like initial disclosures in divorce. And so what we decided is that, families have, especially in divorce, like a duty to provide ongoing, re relevant and material information. So we made some. Updates to, to the required documents that are to be provided in those initial disclosures. And I won't go through everything, but I'll give a few examples. So an example would be like with real estate, including the settlement statement, the mortgage statements, appraisals, and tax notices. One big thing. That we added is just clarification that you get the last three months of pay of pay stubs as well as bank statements. We also clarified that you get some like trust documents. What's really interesting is even though, trust can be very material in a divorce case, it's not required to, give that in the initial disclosure and that's. Where people are like, this is crazy. Why am I not getting these documents? So just things like that needed to be like clarified.
Ryan Kalamaya:So yeah the form 35.1 that's available that has the list, we send it to all of our clients. It's in connection with the sworn financial statement. The title documents and value documents, the way that it's listed. People, ask me do I really need to get all of this, the employee benefits and everything. And, I like, I can't remember the last time someone actually pulled the deed. It's just one of those things, but whereas like credit or loan applications the appraisals and Yeah, absolutely. The trust documents that it's not in there. Okay. So you guys updated that list. We've got for people viewing the kind of, the PowerPoint does a great job of identifying those. Maybe talk about some of the discovery requests, Amy.
Amy Gosha:Yeah, so discovery requests, interrogatories, I always explain to clients are questions that we can ask in every divorce case of the other side, and then production of documents or documents we can request. So in the interrogatories we just clarified a few things. Essentially to say that you could get like a social security statement. I can't tell you how many times I've tried. You can do non pattern, which are ones that we draft ourselves, that I've added that in there. So just things that. We as attorneys and also people that are not doing this everyday need, like credit reports, social security earning statements that information was just added. So it's easy to, say, okay, I will just issue this formal discovery request. And that's after the initial disclosure process. But we just wanted to make it easier for people to get the information that they needed.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah. And one thing Nate I've dealt with fairly recently'cause I had a trial, is this interaction between Rule 16.2 and 26. I am fairly familiar with Rule 26, which is for just general civil. Litigation.'cause my my old firm and when I was an associate I would do civil litigation and so I was familiar with experts and the kind of various requirements in there. And most family law attorneys, they don't have that background. So they're, they don't really have any familiarity with rule. 26 and specifically with like expert disclosures in terms of what the reports look like and the various other things. And so one of the things that you guys have done is to clarify that kind of overlap between, different rules, right?
Amy Gosha:Yeah, exactly. And it's all laid out there, but specifically what's very confusing is that like how the rule is written now, like you're saying around with 26 and 26 A, it specifically says that. This rule shall not be applied to domestic relations cases, even though it does apply.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah, they and for people that, that may not they don't understand how the law's written. What happens is the legislature and various people they create things and then they don't really understand what the implication is for. Something else that may be interrelated. So you just have these either loopholes or oversights or ex these kind of competing interests. Yeah, that's just something that I think will be super valuable for everyone. Attorneys in particular who, we geek out on these rules and use them, to our advantage or for various kind of discovery disputes in particular. Let's kind of pivot Amy and talk about contempt of court. Everyone's favorite subject contempt of court. What are the changes that are on the table for contempt of court?
Amy Gosha:The biggest change that I wanna highlight is related to attorney's fees. So right now, essentially if you have punitive contempt, sometimes you can't get attorney's fees. And most likely you can't unless you have a provision in your separation agreement that says that you can. So right now, like what you'll see is someone will not pay, let's say like their something that they have to pay, pursuant to the separation agreement. They just don't pay it, and then they let it accumulate. The other spouse who needs the money files the motion for contempt. Then a few days before the hearing, the party who isn't paying pays, which purges the contempt. And then the court is left in this position of not being able to award attorney's fees and the party who had to file a motion is out a bunch of attorney's fees so that we just, judges don't think that's fair. Attorneys don't think that's fair. Litigants certainly don't think that's fair. So we tried to make language in there so courts can actually order attorney's fees in contempt. So it's actually the rule will do what it's meant to do, which is to enforce court orders.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah, I've seen this. People will just, eric Wolf may be aggravated by, how much he has to pay Melanie and just refuse to sign tax returns or refuse to pay child support or something that he's obligated to do and just play. It's a game of cat and mouse or just dragging your feet and then. Melanie will have to go hire an attorney and file a contempt, and then at the last minute he'll come up and do what he needs to do. And then meanwhile, Melanie's out five,$10,000 because she's had to incur, incur. Attorney's fees because he's not, Eric wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing in the first place. It's extremely frustrating. All right. Let's talk about the proposed GAL rule change. What is the GAL and what's the change?
Amy Gosha:Yeah, and I'll get to that. I just, the one slide that you had up that is important is that someone will violate a court order and you'll file a contempt, but there can be like multiple violations. And so now. We're clarifying that the court can consider multiple repetitive violations with within 21 days of the notice. So instead of having to keep filing contempt motion, so that was also problematic. So guardian ad litem in Colorado this has been problematic for many years. There's just been not a lot of guidance in the domestic relations area for how to use GS and what standard is applied when. The court needs to appoint a GAL. So a GAL really goes to someone's capacity and ability to understand in a divorce context, like when they, you know how their rights are being affected and if they enter an agreement, they, that they have the capacity and can understand. That agreement. So that's, like a huge thing that comes up in not every case, but comes up and attorneys and certainly litigants and judges have always had a hard time with understanding how to deal with it. Or how to, appoint a GAL and what is the gal GA's rule role within, the divorce context. So we now have a proposed new rule. That is awesome and clarifies essentially when a GAL can be appointed. It also allows, which I think is interesting the ability for a non-attorney to be appointed in certain circumstances. And the example that I would give is that some attorneys and judges highlighted that someone might understand an agreement, but they might not have the ability to speak like they might have. Speak language aphasia or something like that, where there needs to be like a medical person that comes in to help that person. So it might not just be an attorney who has that expertise to do that. So the rule clarifies that it could be in certain circumstances, like a non-attorney to fill that role. And also a big issue that judges always ask is, can the GAL sign a separation agreement on behalf of the, the client? So it clarifies, like the decision making role when the GAL is wearing that type of a hat. So I think it's really gonna help with clarifying that role for judges, attorneys, and also people. Who, their rights when they're appointed. I think the only other thing I would highlight with the GAL rule is that it does require a separate hearing if it's contested, and for that separate hearing to be done by a different judge. Because the concern is that that there could be some bias. And also if there, if it's being contested, that shouldn't be necessarily just within the divorce court. So it does clarify that.
Ryan Kalamaya:Interesting. Yeah. People that there's certain people that really impacts. I have occasionally had GAL issues, but they, for people that are in that industry, they should go check out the specifics of that the proposed rule changes. Let's talk about. It's something else. And change t Amy, the proposed informal dr. Trial rule. So what's this all about?
Amy Gosha:So this rule really came from, we looked at various states. This one is based off of Alaska. Alaska's pretty progressive when it comes to dealing with pro se parties. Essentially this rule, and I won't get into all of these specifics. A lot of judges reported back to us from around the state of Colorado that they're already doing a lot of these things, like when they have people who come into their courtrooms who are not represented, like they're sitting there with two people that maybe are still filling out their sworn financial statements. So the way that they're conducting the hearing is they're, asking the litigants questions. Like it's not the litigant. Asking the other party questions because they don't even know what questions to ask. So it really just codifies a lot of what judges are already doing. But provides a way to opt in if you're not represented to an a more informal to trial, process. I will say that this rule, there's gonna be a lot of comments on this rule because I think it can be drafted better in certain respects. But it, I think it's gonna be a great tool for judges and also for it to make, like it more accessible for people who are not represented in court to get their disputes resolved.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah. The, it seems as if this is codifying what I've seen a lot in particular, on the parenting disputes that go to arbitration or that are with PCMs. For example, parties will not be cross examined. And so I've seen. That not people have pretty strong feelings. I, as a prosecutor, I remember, one of my first kind of hearings was this traffic or a speeding ticket. This guy was charged with speeding and he wanted to challenge it and went into we had at trial and as a lawyer he didn't have an attorney and I'm objecting to hearsay and all these other things. Then the judge just looked at me and was like. Wait, come on, Ryan. This is a speeding ticket. Let's and obviously when people are in infor, like they, they're dealing with their kids. These family law issues are really important. But it went to Ryan, your lawyer, he's trying to, litigate a speeding ticket. Give him his fair, his day in court. But you don't need to be this rural kind of, dictator. And really use, there are circumstances in particular when people don't have attorneys that we just want to get the information and let judges make that decision based on the kind of best evidence without, rigid adherence to the rules of evidence or other kind of procedural things that so I encourage people to check out that. Informal trial rule 16.5. Yeah, go ahead.
Amy Gosha:Oh, the last rule that we're gonna highlight is in Colorado we have the child and family investigator and the PE. So there are some clarifications. And what's interesting about this role of experts is that their guidelines are all over the place, which is not great. These rules, just to clarify. They don't change statute. And what that means is it doesn't change the Colorado revised like statutory rules. It also doesn't change cjds, which are chief justice directives. And so we put in this rule like all of the places where someone would have to look to see, when they're looking at appointing A CFI or a PRE, where do they need to look besides this rule? Some of the things that we clarified though, were that the expert disclosure rule said, said, says, now that you, any expert needs to provide a draft report that never happens with CFIs or peer. So we just clarified that they don't have to provide a draft report. Another issue that came up is CFIs and es getting inquiries about what cases they've been on or, who's deposed them. So we did clarify that they are supposed to provide at least the last four years of what cases they've testified in. And who has deposed'em. There was a general consensus that. CFIs and Prees should not be deposed. However, we do recognize that there's like rare circumstances where maybe they would be. So we still gave the court discretion to be able to order that if it was necessary. And we just clarified attendance of hearings and knowing that a lot of experts are appearing virtually. So we just clarified some of that language as well.
Ryan Kalamaya:All helpful information. I have yet to provide comments and, I'm gonna dig in and, encourage attorneys, members of the public whether you've gone through a divorce or you're currently in a divorce. I think you've got some insight into how these rule changes. Could benefit hopefully, or what maybe unintended consequences there may be. And I think that's really important to mention is that. That's why we have these proposed rules, but then they're not enacted immediately. We seek comments and that's part of the process by which these rules are promulgated and really encourage people before that April 25th deadline to, to get your comments in. Anything else, Amy, as we wrap up?
Amy Gosha:No, I think, yeah, just the call. We want perspectives from everyone because we might not know what the unintended consequences are, please provide us with your comments. Thanks.
Ryan Kalamaya:Amy, thank you for all the time that you that you and the other members have put in. I know that it is, it is not time that you're paid for and you're doing it to improve this system. Thanks for your service and all the time that you've devoted to it. Looking forward to improving the system and hopefully this episode. It has been, helpful for people to understand and go out and make the system better. That's what everyone is really hoping for. Until next time, thanks for joining us on Divorce Altitude. Thanks for listening or watching this short lesson on the Divorce Ude podcast. If you found this helpful, please leave a review or share with a friend. It does help for others that are going through or thinking about a Divorce in Colorado. If you want to find out more information, Please visit Kalamaya Law or Divorce at Altittude dot com and that's K A L A M A Y A law. Remember, this is educational information, it's not intended to be legal advice. Please consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case. We're happy to answer questions. Feel free to give us a call at(970) 315-2365.