The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY October 10, 2024
2024COA112
No. 23CA1278, In re the Marriage of Nevedrova — Family Law — Dissolution — Disposition of Property — Marital Property; Financial Institutions — Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act — Transfers to Minors
A division of the court of appeals concludes that an account
established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act,
sections 11-50-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, is property of the minor.
Therefore it may not be considered marital property subject to
property division in a dissolution of marriage action. COURT OF APPEALS 2024COA112
Court of Appeals No. 23CA1278 El Paso County District Court No. 21DR31895 Honorable Jill M. Brady, Judge
In re the Marriage of
Cheryl Laslo Nevedrova,
Appellee,
and
Dmitri Nevedrov,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Division II Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON Fox and Schock, JJ., concur
Announced October 10, 2024
Robinson & Henry, P.C., Marlana A. Caruso, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, for Appellee
Beltz & West, P.C., Daniel A. West, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 This case requires us to decide whether an account
established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act
(UTMA), sections 11-50-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, may be
considered marital property. In this dissolution of marriage
proceeding between Dimitri Nevedrov (husband) and Cheryl Laslo
Nevedrova (wife), husband asserts that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to divide the balance of an account established in the
parties’ child’s name under the UTMA. We conclude that, if an
account was created under the UTMA and funds were properly
transferred to it, the account is not marital property. But we also
conclude that the record in this case is insufficient to determine
whether the account in question was created in compliance with
that statute. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion and to determine appellate attorney fees.
I. Background
¶2 After eight years of marriage, wife filed a petition for
dissolution. During the marriage, the parties had one child
together.
1 ¶3 The district court held a hearing to address property division
and parental responsibilities. After the hearing, the court dissolved
the marriage and entered permanent orders. The court divided the
parties’ several bank accounts and other property, including, as
relevant here, an account labeled “UGMA_UTMA” (the account).
The court divided the $132,950 balance of the account equally
between the parties. The court then ordered husband to pay wife
an equalization payment of $567,949. Based on this division and
other factors, the court determined that wife was entitled to spousal
maintenance of $2,065.40 per month for three years and two
months and child support in the amount of $271.08 per month.
II. Preservation
¶4 The parties understood that there were UTMA funds in
dispute. And they alerted the trial court to it in their joint trial
management certificate. The certificate reflected husband’s request
that the court hold the account identified as “T Rowe Price
UGMA_UTMA” for the child until the child’s eighteenth birthday,
order that no withdrawal occur without a court order, and permit
both parties to only add money to the account. Husband also
2 indicated on the parties’ joint marital spreadsheet that the marital
value of the account was $0.
¶5 By ordering the account to be split equally, the district court
implicitly found that it was marital property, rather than the child’s
property. Therefore, we consider the issue preserved. See
Madalena v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2023 COA 32, ¶ 50 (In the civil
context, “[i]f a party raises an argument to such a degree that
the court has the opportunity to rule on it, that argument is
preserved for appeal.” (quoting Brown v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of
Wis., 2019 COA 11, ¶ 21)).
III. Standard of Review
¶6 The district court has latitude to effectuate an equitable
distribution of the marital estate based on the facts and
circumstances of each case, and we will not disturb its decision
absent an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Balanson, 25
P.3d 28, 35 (Colo. 2001). A court abuses its discretion when its
decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or a
misapplication of the law. In re Marriage of Bergeson-Flanders,
2022 COA 18, ¶ 10.
3 ¶7 And statutory interpretation is a question of law we also review
de novo. Giguere v. SJS Fam. Enters., Ltd., 155 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo.
App. 2006).
IV. UTMA
¶8 Under Colorado’s UTMA, money, securities, and other property
can be invested in the minor’s name, with a custodian having a
fiduciary responsibility to prudently manage the funds in the
accounts. §§ 11-50-110, -113, C.R.S. 2024. But a person
establishing the account must follow the statutory guidelines under
the UTMA.
¶9 Specifically, a person may make a gift or transfer of money to
a minor that will be governed by the UTMA, as long as the
transferor, the minor, or the custodian is a resident of Colorado on
the date of the gift or transfer. § 11-50-103(1), C.R.S. 2024. And a
gift or transfer to a minor made pursuant to the UTMA is
irrevocable and conveys to the minor indefeasibly vested legal title
to the property. § 11-50-112(2), C.R.S. 2024.
¶ 10 To constitute an irrevocable gift or transfer of money under the
statute, the transferor must pay or deliver the money to “a broker or
financial institution for credit to an account in the name of the
4 transferor, . . . followed in substance by the words: ‘as custodian
for _____ (name of minor) under the “Colorado Uniform Transfers to
Minors Act.”” § 11-50-110(1)(b).
¶ 11 There is no Colorado case on point that deals with how a
district court should handle a UTMA account in the context of
property division in a dissolution of marriage action. In re Marriage
of Ludwig, 122 P.3d 1056, 1060-61 (Colo. App. 2005), came close,
addressing funds held in a Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
(UGMA) account.1 There, a division of this court held that the
domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion when it did not
consider funds in the UGMA account for purposes of the parents’
support obligations, and that the domestic relations court lacked
jurisdiction to remove father as custodian of the child’s account.
The division determined that the issue of the account’s custodian
had to be considered by a district court that obtained jurisdiction
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY October 10, 2024
2024COA112
No. 23CA1278, In re the Marriage of Nevedrova — Family Law — Dissolution — Disposition of Property — Marital Property; Financial Institutions — Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act — Transfers to Minors
A division of the court of appeals concludes that an account
established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act,
sections 11-50-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, is property of the minor.
Therefore it may not be considered marital property subject to
property division in a dissolution of marriage action. COURT OF APPEALS 2024COA112
Court of Appeals No. 23CA1278 El Paso County District Court No. 21DR31895 Honorable Jill M. Brady, Judge
In re the Marriage of
Cheryl Laslo Nevedrova,
Appellee,
and
Dmitri Nevedrov,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Division II Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON Fox and Schock, JJ., concur
Announced October 10, 2024
Robinson & Henry, P.C., Marlana A. Caruso, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, for Appellee
Beltz & West, P.C., Daniel A. West, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 This case requires us to decide whether an account
established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act
(UTMA), sections 11-50-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, may be
considered marital property. In this dissolution of marriage
proceeding between Dimitri Nevedrov (husband) and Cheryl Laslo
Nevedrova (wife), husband asserts that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to divide the balance of an account established in the
parties’ child’s name under the UTMA. We conclude that, if an
account was created under the UTMA and funds were properly
transferred to it, the account is not marital property. But we also
conclude that the record in this case is insufficient to determine
whether the account in question was created in compliance with
that statute. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion and to determine appellate attorney fees.
I. Background
¶2 After eight years of marriage, wife filed a petition for
dissolution. During the marriage, the parties had one child
together.
1 ¶3 The district court held a hearing to address property division
and parental responsibilities. After the hearing, the court dissolved
the marriage and entered permanent orders. The court divided the
parties’ several bank accounts and other property, including, as
relevant here, an account labeled “UGMA_UTMA” (the account).
The court divided the $132,950 balance of the account equally
between the parties. The court then ordered husband to pay wife
an equalization payment of $567,949. Based on this division and
other factors, the court determined that wife was entitled to spousal
maintenance of $2,065.40 per month for three years and two
months and child support in the amount of $271.08 per month.
II. Preservation
¶4 The parties understood that there were UTMA funds in
dispute. And they alerted the trial court to it in their joint trial
management certificate. The certificate reflected husband’s request
that the court hold the account identified as “T Rowe Price
UGMA_UTMA” for the child until the child’s eighteenth birthday,
order that no withdrawal occur without a court order, and permit
both parties to only add money to the account. Husband also
2 indicated on the parties’ joint marital spreadsheet that the marital
value of the account was $0.
¶5 By ordering the account to be split equally, the district court
implicitly found that it was marital property, rather than the child’s
property. Therefore, we consider the issue preserved. See
Madalena v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2023 COA 32, ¶ 50 (In the civil
context, “[i]f a party raises an argument to such a degree that
the court has the opportunity to rule on it, that argument is
preserved for appeal.” (quoting Brown v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of
Wis., 2019 COA 11, ¶ 21)).
III. Standard of Review
¶6 The district court has latitude to effectuate an equitable
distribution of the marital estate based on the facts and
circumstances of each case, and we will not disturb its decision
absent an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Balanson, 25
P.3d 28, 35 (Colo. 2001). A court abuses its discretion when its
decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or a
misapplication of the law. In re Marriage of Bergeson-Flanders,
2022 COA 18, ¶ 10.
3 ¶7 And statutory interpretation is a question of law we also review
de novo. Giguere v. SJS Fam. Enters., Ltd., 155 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo.
App. 2006).
IV. UTMA
¶8 Under Colorado’s UTMA, money, securities, and other property
can be invested in the minor’s name, with a custodian having a
fiduciary responsibility to prudently manage the funds in the
accounts. §§ 11-50-110, -113, C.R.S. 2024. But a person
establishing the account must follow the statutory guidelines under
the UTMA.
¶9 Specifically, a person may make a gift or transfer of money to
a minor that will be governed by the UTMA, as long as the
transferor, the minor, or the custodian is a resident of Colorado on
the date of the gift or transfer. § 11-50-103(1), C.R.S. 2024. And a
gift or transfer to a minor made pursuant to the UTMA is
irrevocable and conveys to the minor indefeasibly vested legal title
to the property. § 11-50-112(2), C.R.S. 2024.
¶ 10 To constitute an irrevocable gift or transfer of money under the
statute, the transferor must pay or deliver the money to “a broker or
financial institution for credit to an account in the name of the
4 transferor, . . . followed in substance by the words: ‘as custodian
for _____ (name of minor) under the “Colorado Uniform Transfers to
Minors Act.”” § 11-50-110(1)(b).
¶ 11 There is no Colorado case on point that deals with how a
district court should handle a UTMA account in the context of
property division in a dissolution of marriage action. In re Marriage
of Ludwig, 122 P.3d 1056, 1060-61 (Colo. App. 2005), came close,
addressing funds held in a Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
(UGMA) account.1 There, a division of this court held that the
domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion when it did not
consider funds in the UGMA account for purposes of the parents’
support obligations, and that the domestic relations court lacked
jurisdiction to remove father as custodian of the child’s account.
The division determined that the issue of the account’s custodian
had to be considered by a district court that obtained jurisdiction
over the UGMA account in a separate civil proceeding. Id.
1 The Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act was repealed and
reenacted as the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act in 1984. Ch. 74, sec. 1, 1984 Colo. Sess. Laws 383-93.
5 ¶ 12 Buder v. Sartore, 774 P.2d 1383, 1384-85 (Colo. 1989),
addressed the proper standard of investment care and
custodianship in a properly brought civil action concerning a UTMA
account. In finding that the father, who served as custodian of the
UTMA accounts, had breached his fiduciary duty, the district court
replaced father with mother as the custodian. Id.
¶ 13 In both cases, the Colorado courts considered the UGMA and
UTMA funds to be the property of the children, not the parents.
The corollary to this is that, if the funds are not the parents’
property, they cannot be marital property. Other jurisdictions
interpreting the uniform act upon which our statute is based
directly conclude that, in the context of a dissolution of marriage
case, UTMA accounts are not marital property. See Heitmeyer v.
Arthur, 2022-Ohio-4230, ¶ 30 (Ct. App.) (citing unpublished Ohio
decisions that have held that a custodial account under Ohio’s
UTMA is not marital or separate property); In re Marriage of Kenney,
137 S.W.3d 487, 490-91 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (accounts under
Iowa’s UTMA law were not marital property); Guerrier v. Guerrier,
574 S.E.2d 69, 70 n.2 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (noting that in a
separate domestic relations action, the court had improperly
6 considered accounts owned by the parties’ children under North
Carolina’s UTMA to be marital property); In re Marriage of
Hendricks, 681 N.E.2d 777, 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (stock, which
was the subject of an irrevocable gift to the parties’ child under
Indiana’s UTMA, was not “marital property” that could be divided
upon the dissolution of the parties’ marriage).
¶ 14 Although we are not bound by out-of-state authority, see Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers Int’l Union, 2016
COA 72, ¶ 17, we find these authorities persuasive, see People in
Interest of C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662, 666 (Colo. App. 2011) (when
interpreting a Colorado statute based on a uniform act, “we may
look to authority from other states interpreting their versions of the
code for persuasive authority”). Therefore, we conclude that if the
account was established under the UTMA, the district court erred
by treating it as marital property and dividing the funds between
husband and wife.
¶ 15 But on this record, we cannot determine whether this account
was established under the UTMA. It is true that the account is
identified as “UGMA_UTMA” on husband’s bank statements. But
no evidence in the record indicates that husband delivered the
7 money to T. Rowe Price, followed by a declaration that he was the
custodian for the child under the UTMA, as required by section 11-
50-110(1)(b).2
¶ 16 Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and
remand the matter for the court to take additional evidence and
make findings on whether the account was created under the
UTMA.3 If so, the court could not divide the account as marital
property and must recalculate its property division. After
recalculating the property division, the court must then revisit its
determinations of spousal maintenance and child support. See In
re Marriage of de Koning, 2016 CO 2, ¶ 22 (when a district court
revisits a property division in a marriage dissolution, it must also
reevaluate maintenance and child support determinations because
the issues are interdependent).
2 Husband indicated in the parties’ joint trial management
certificate that the account should be held for the minor child until eighteen years of age. But an account established under the UTMA does not terminate and the funds may not transfer to the minor until the minor turns twenty-one. § 11-50-121(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024. 3 Wife contends that husband transferred marital assets into the
account after she filed the petition for dissolution of marriage. We take no position on this assertion, as we are remanding the matter to the district court to take additional evidence.
8 V. Appellate Attorney Fees
¶ 17 Wife requests an award of appellate attorney fees under
section 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2024, arguing that husband’s appeal
lacks substantial justification. Given our disposition, we deny
wife’s request. See In re Marriage of Collins, 2023 COA 116M, ¶ 87.
¶ 18 Wife also requests her appellate attorney fees pursuant to
section 14-10-119, C.R.S. 2024, in consideration of the financial
disparity that exists between the parties. Because the district court
is better equipped to determine the factual issues regarding the
parties’ current financial resources, we remand the issue of whether
wife should be awarded reasonable appellate attorney fees to the
district court. See In re Marriage of Bochner, 2023 COA 63, ¶ 22;
see also In re Marriage of Schaefer, 2022 COA 112, ¶ 37 (holding
that wife’s request for award of her attorney fees associated with
successful appeal of maintenance and child support awards would
be considered on remand).
VI. Conclusion
¶ 19 We reverse the judgment and remand the case for the district
court to make further findings on the UTMA account, reconsider
other issues identified in this opinion as may be necessary following
9 resolution of the UTMA account issue, and consider wife’s request
for appellate attorney fees under section 14-10-119.
JUDGE FOX and JUDGE SCHOCK concur.