Divorce at Altitude: A Podcast on Colorado Family Law
Divorce at Altitude: A Podcast on Colorado Family Law
Alimony & Domestic Violence: The New Colorado Rules | Episode 236
Welcome back to Divorce at Altitude with Ryan Kalamaya and Amy Goscha. This week, Ryan and Amy unpack Colorado’s evolving spousal maintenance (alimony) landscape—specifically how coercive control, domestic violence, and litigation abuse now factor into maintenance decisions under §14-10-114. They lay the groundwork for when maintenance is considered, how the advisory guideline interacts with income, duration, and tax changes, and what judges are being asked to weigh beyond the traditional factors.
Episode Highlights
Maintenance 101
• When spousal maintenance is on the table after property division
• How Colorado’s advisory guideline works (income, duration, caps)
New DV/Coercive Control Factor
• How emotional/financial abuse, coercive control, and protection orders can affect awards
• Why courts may look at access to money, debt in one party’s name, and “litigation abuse”
Practice & Proof
• Evidence that helps: texts, photos, financial records, counseling history
• The credibility challenge in DV cases—and why expert testimony can matter
Judicial Reality & Open Questions
• How judges may balance lifestyle history with abuse factors
• Potential impacts on modifications and on payor/payee outcomes
Key Takeaways
• Maintenance decisions remain case-specific—now with explicit attention to abuse and control.
• Early, thorough evidence gathering is crucial.
• DV/coercive control issues may change whether maintenance is awarded, the amount, or duration.
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.
Hey everyone. I'm Ryan Kalamaya. And I'm Amy Goscha. Welcome to the Divorce at Altittude, a podcast on Colorado family law. Divorce is not easy. It really sucks. Trust me, I know. Besides being an experienced Divorce attorney, I'm also a Divorce client. Whether you or someone considering Divorce or a fellow family law attorney, listen in for weekly tips and insight into topics related to Divorce co-parenting. And separation in Colorado. Welcome back to another episode of Divorce at Altittude. This week I am joined by my esteemed co-host, Amy Goscha. Amy, what are we talking about today?
Amy Goscha:Today we're talking about spousal maintenance. But we're also talking about the factors of if there's course of control and domestic violence abuse and how that affects, like what a spouse is gonna get regarding support in a Colorado Divorce. Yeah.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah, no, it used to be that Eric and Melanie Wolf are hypothetical Divorce clients. If they went through a Divorce there might be a claim of maintenance and we'll lay the groundwork about what maintenance is and what the factors, that kind of historical factors that the court considers. But it used to be that there was no kind of indication or evidence about. Why the parties got divorced. I think it's arguable about, whether or not that is now relevant except that, domestic violence and behavior in any sort of coerce of control was always relevant under 14, 10, 1 24, which is the statue on the best interest of the children. But Amy for listeners, why don't we lay their groundwork. So Eric and Melanie Wolf, they're going through a Divorce. When are we talking about spousal maintenance and maybe give a little bit more of a framework and context for what we're talking about here?
Amy Goscha:Yeah. So when Melanie and Eric are getting divorced, all their finances are combined there's a disparity of income. So as they're separating out their family life. To equalize them out on expenses. Melanie is probably gonna need what's called spousal maintenance or alimony. And so in Colorado we have a statute, it's 14 10, 1 14. That lays out factors for when the court, it's an advisory guideline as to when the court can award support to a spouse such as Melanie. And over the course of the years in Colorado, the maintenance statute has gone through some revisions. There was a big overhaul in recent years to the maintenance statute. Mainly there was put in like an advisory guideline. So essentially there's kind almost like the child support work, like the child support guideline. Essentially, they have a guideline for maintenance that says, depending on how many years you've been married and like what your income is, here's what the, recommended spousal maintenance. S formula would be but there's, a cap, it goes up to 20 years. There's a certain combined gross income. But we've seen in the courts recently. A shift to in domestic relations, cases in family law to recognize that there are, like there are cases where there's course of control and abuse and that should have a factor. The court needs to consider that. Like with children, but not only children, but also with finances.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah. And to maybe flesh that out even further, the first kinda step for Erica and Melanie is to divide property and if there is insufficient property for Melanie to meet her reasonable needs through the property that she's awarded in the Divorce and through her own. Employment. Then we're talking about spousal maintenance or alimony. And as you said, Amy I don't know of any statute that has changed during my career more than 14 10, 1 14 because first we had what you mentioned about the advisory, the form, the formula, essentially that was an additional factor that was supposed to be considered. There's a whole body of language or language or really case law about the health. Of Eric and Melanie and how that mattered their incomes. And what was income? Was it trust income? Was it gift income? Was it employment income? What about partnerships? And there's this whole body of case law on those factors. Whether Eric was had a trust fund that wasn't actually. Considered as property, how did that matter? And all of that's still fair game. But then we added this formula both for the amount and that was changed and it was supposed to be$240,000 combined income. And, but then we had the tax change and when you and I were first cutting our teeth. Alimony used to be and in spousal maintenance it was taxable, so you could have this tax arbitrage. That changed and then the formula needed to change because it was no longer taxable. Now we have this whole. New factor. And there's, the, I speak with judges new judges. I, I do a presentation to all the new judges. At the end of judicial conference every year this year there was 16 new judges. And not all of them were there, but we talk about spousal maintenance and, they, they don't really understand how intensive it. It is. But once they then have a maintenance case, they, judges roll their eyes because it is, problematic from a judge's perspective in terms of getting an order out that is on spousal maintenance because there are so many factors. They duplicate one another, but now we have a new. Factor. So instead of talking about just like the income and the property that they receive and their health and their employability and their age, now we have another factor and I think that it will be. Fascinating to see how judges use this factor, because now Amy, what are judges supposed to be considering in addition to the history of the lifestyle and whether Melanie, ate out and frequently and traveled and whether they stayed in the Ritz versus the Waldorf and got into kind of the shopping and the, all the expenses which you inherently inevitably do with a maintenance award. What else are we. Gonna be talking about,
Amy Goscha:Now the court's gonna have to be looking at, was there course of control? Was there emotional abuse, financial manipulation so there's this element of was there domestic violence essentially? And if there was, like under the new factor and we'll see how the courts are gonna con, interpret it. But that could be something that, makes a spouse who needs to pay maintenance, pay it or not. Or it might be a spouse who would normally receive maintenance, might not receive spousal maintenance. So it's a huge factor that will change the outcome of cases.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah, no the statute talks about whether a mandatory protection order has been filed and the, but the issue that we don't really have any guidance on and talking with judges, I, they, I don't know how they're gonna really handle this because the statute talks about coercive control, emotional abuse, litigation abuse. So if Eric. Is super aggressive and he's just trying to bury Melly in the Divorce. Then that is be that arguably becomes, relevant. But then you also have this other aspect of emotional abuse and that some judges I think are gonna be uncomfortable because they're just used to. Saying, putting up their hand and saying, the reasons that you got divorced are, I don't want to get into it. This is getting into why you're getting a Divorce. But then, on the other hand, Melanie is gonna say I was emotionally abused. This is a factor you need to consider notwithstanding, children. And I think it will be a factor that absolutely is going to be considered. And I think people need to really be aware that this is now fair game in terms of, and it's a factor. It used to be that, the kind of behavior yes, it could be relevant for the equitable division of property. You could talk about contributions and I, Melanie if she. If she was the victim, then she would say, I, I took all of this abuse and I still stayed with them, which I think is relevant for that. The Mandatory Protection Order, and Amy, with the policy behind the, statute is to prevent. Melanie being stuck or really, recognizing that she might feel stuck in a marriage because she's financially being controlled. Can you maybe talk about situations that we're aware of that, that might be the case?
Amy Goscha:Yeah, there's definitely, like course of control, but also there is definitely like financial, abuse. Like we have cases where. If Melanie is brave enough to file for Divorce, like there might be cases where you'll find, like I see a lot of like financial abuse where I see like a lot of debt in one party's name sometimes, and like the other person hasn't. Put any debt in their name. Another kind of financial thing I look at is access to accounts. Did the marriage unwind where there was like a stipend and one person had like control and access to all the money and the other person, did it. Those are some things. That I'm looking at, to understand if there has been financial and course of control, when you're looking at the financial aspects.
Ryan Kalamaya:Yeah. And if people wanna learn more about some of the kind of more nuanced and detailed aspects. There's a previous episode I did 1 71 with it's called Understanding and Combating Financial Abuse and Divorce with Lisa Zeidman from, she was in New York. She's in New York. Divorce attorney. But at the time of that recording, we weren't really, getting, it wasn't an explicit factor. I'm aware I think I could be wrong, but I think Illinois, there are states, there are, that take into consideration, coercive control, abuse in dividing property. And so now Colorado has this factor that we have to consider now again, as we said before, is it just whether there's a mandatory protection order And is that kind of the bright line rule, or is it allow a Trojan horse of bringing these issues in and then it mushrooms and explodes where the whole case becomes, all about that? I think some, some people are gonna really push this issue and, it's whether what the judges, they are human beings and are they more likely to award Melanie Wolf. A significant spousal maintenance award. If they feel bad for her and they don't like Eric, absolutely. But is that really gonna be used? And, when we say kind of Eric and Melanie, we're very much like stereotyping here. There are circumstances where it goes the other way, but I think it's relevant and important for people to understand that this is a new law. It is now going to be a feature going forward. The question then, is there's several questions, is what about a maintenance award from two years ago that, they were gonna be filing a motion to modify where, this might be relevant because it also, it basically someone from being awarded spousal maintenance if. They were the aggressor or the perpetrator of domestic violence. And so it's protecting someone by saying, I stayed in this marriage because they were abusive and now, and I was also worried about paying them spousal maintenance. Now it's cut the other way.
Amy Goscha:Yeah. So I think with any new law, like the intention behind it is really good. But we'll see how it plays out like in the interpretation. So that's the period we're in because it was just enacted.
Ryan Kalamaya:And that's I guess all the, we really want to say on the matter. It's more of something that we're certainly considering. Certainly Amy in my kind of consultations, I'm asking, people as part of that intake process and evaluating, the issues. One of the things I often ask is, what is the worst. Thing that the other side is gonna say about you?'cause I wanna know are like, what are we dealing with? No one is perfect, I certainly am not perfect. And the, what is the other person gonna say? And if, I hear. Domestic violence or I, I was abusive or I maybe lost my cool. Usually it's if Eric or Melanie or the kind of perpetrators, during the marriage, they'll kinda sheepishly they'll minimize, but, they'll, they're, no, no one's gonna say, listen, I, beat the shit out of them all the time. The, in their mind it's justified and it can be also really complicated. It could be a very dramatic relationship, but certainly unpacking that in the very beginning, but then also marshaling into evidence, the text messages, the videos, the photos the other things that may exist that corroborate because. Oftentimes, as a former prosecutor, I can speak from experience. These are really tough cases to prosecute in terms of domestic violence because usually it's a he said, she said, and those cases really are problematic when it comes down to credibility. And then you also have, if you're a victim of credibility or if you're a victim of domestic violence. The research is oftentimes those people can, come across as weak and they are evasive because they're scared, they're shamed, and that can impact their credibility and that can be really, important to, to unpack during a Divorce where they're coming out of that cloud that or that thumb that they've been under, counseling. All of those things are really gonna be important as we go through the Divorce process.
Amy Goscha:Yeah, and the thing I keep thinking of is, I think this language being added to the maintenance statute is, it might be more relevant to have a DV expert come in to testify.'Cause when you're the judge, a lot of times you're sitting there and you're thinking. Two people are here. You both had, some contributions, so you both are somewhat at fault. So I think it's educating the judge, like you said, on some of those stereotypes of how, a victim will present. And what that looks because it's very flushed out in the parenting side of things. We have CFIs and ES who, have the DV kind of rubric and questions to ask for the screenings. But now it's coming into this area of how are finances going to look like? It's becoming a factor, and I think we'll see more DV experts too.
Ryan Kalamaya:Indeed. These are touchy, uncomfortable subjects. By talking about'em and in such a manner it doesn't, desensitize or really make the issues any more. Easy to deal with. But hopefully people understand and if they're involved in a case on either side, they need to be aware that this is now. It's gonna be relevant and we're, figuring out exactly how important judges are putting how much weight are they putting on these sorts of allegations. But thank you again for joining us and Amy always enjoy the conversation, even if it's on difficult topics like domestic violence and coersive control. But until next time, thanks for joining us at Divorce Altittude. hey everyone. This is Ryan again. Thank you for joining us on Divorce at Altittude. If you found our tips, insight, or discussion helpful, please tell a friend about this podcast. For show notes, additional resources or links mentioned on today's episode, visit Divorce at Altittude dot com. Follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen in. Many of our episodes are also posted on YouTube. You can also find Amy and. Law or 9 7 0 3 1 5 2 3 6 5. That's Kalamaya.