In re the Marriage of Nevedrova , 2024 COA 112 ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>SUMMARY </div>
<div>October 10, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>2024COA112<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No<span>. 23CA1278, <span>In re the Marriage of Nevedrova</span> <span>—</span> Family La<span></span>w </span>
</div>
<div>—<span> Dissolution </span>—<span> Disposition of Property </span>—<span> Marital Property;<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>Financial Institutions <span>—</span> Colorado Uniform Transfers to <span></span>Minors </div>
<div>Act <span>—</span> Transfers to Minors<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A division of the court of appeals concludes that an account </div>
<div>established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers <span>to</span> Minors Act, </div>
<div>sections 11-<span>50</span>-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, is propert<span></span>y of the minor<span>. </span> </div>
<div>Therefore it may not be considered marital property <span></span>subject to </div>
<div>property division in a dissolution of marriage action.<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions </div>
<div>constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by </div>
<div>the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be </div>
<div>cited or <span>relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. </span>
</div>
<div>Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion </div>
<div>should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMs/GK1/MMsGK1IUcTD4uOM2MYd37VlD9cmxLJ5yIKdghlAb1pNX4%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPTKQZ7323&amp;Expires=1728651790&amp;Signature=HLJzOBGmifgPIa69NZGB5s%2B8zEk%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDQaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIAcdZgbHsEx5qZYwzu7eEwDOuuT88nCb6rPvaGhEtX4CAiEAx%2BMy9OqI52QEey%2BMVwgvjtVo90W1A0nLSXU16SYNX8MquQUIjf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDLj1cRULjqizRIPDZCqNBYdQbmrXAtjt9Ju19HuU5ZGK3fWcMO%2FJ%2B5q7bATT177Pw3TEC8Nuh6lsHCHyUul8TjBvsEzKOG9Qk%2B%2BKUgkZSTjT4VkeAJ0YiwG5BsyyFClOMa3laszwuzoyl%2BAGDh66kYyzKtvBdUGK6I%2BK8KC6hozJwAXw0V0KJ7BTsA4tXxlXkz4spVbBAd8cPvgKPfPudTQRgxoJp4MpxW%2FqDBhhJjKfEjBuSCJ1dTlu9oHXEwcIF8hyM3MSY1085B2434g7inMEEXq%2Feqd3Pe2ucjOdpCsA%2FSDFd3kKUd0K52mdpEfmx5jKNuOigbeLhBSowydArp2JqdELyV4IYzEvz9kXVGgPh%2F%2BUUYjJ1qNJ9hFv2CpfrG6SqL1EXsYM6z2wqev2T8RVYBk43SDfvu2lzfX07KVEjRyakWJ3hqg9AisSLjJXXnvEbZXWEKzfags3Kuwa1Asms5Uf0CzApDOPS9vlkE1Wq3kHloxyMvHoMVVHBRuxPV13YqPnu5QcnNpaOkDAqUHDUSfLGHDAzCImaxGLlHdmAbXRFaEQmLdjvY2DTPOCJeEO9KF0mgrfuPkaJZrw0WEA4iKofjol5ttrNsmi6v8IrgtJQB%2FYLymDVsqm7AYXXVYyPEFSjFgIut42LsP5%2FIp7t9cE4ZVzWNqJjO1yu10fBE7u7DJQOp7fxfJPr3r8e6lgWXoev8kSh4KGpSLxONBab0EXPY75iK3n8kYUvjhP4%2FAcrXcAGbmOMfO38U7E3lORnINhHxaNB7qAInMZv0OS9qImTD0XY1aDkbuwd38a8tgFvVptpqlOICIAJbD%2BHlYBwqWXTL2dUDOGp%2BAV6IegHtwEA%2BA4zdeEEs90H8kwslqL7k39u1hPTdlGMLWcpLgGOrEBNF274tEv1wr%2FWYpuZDuj1BSa%2FuMI%2BAQ0optw7fxyRsb%2Fao1N7isZsmxe8OfzQBSxnlcoD42MsHYu6%2B9gZgXwZprBddO710j3%2FZzCX5ojsjNzN1aOgjIvoqo%2BqWg%2F8c7jXk30N4rI%2BEpf7ZWF%2FA9w108YO0Dy2W4D%2F5ZyWF24TYCWHdm61d%2BYTwoZOTFvcalq1CVXOIwWYMVH6G%2F4n%2FdUYaReZJxIL621s8yGJL6JSoOg"><div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COURT OF APPEALS <span>2024COA112</span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA1278 </div>
<div>El Paso<span> County District Court No. 21DR31895 </span>
</div>
<div>Honorable <span>Jill M</span>. Brady, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In re the Marriage of </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheryl Laslo Nevedrova, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dmitri Nevedrov, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT<span> <span>REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS</span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>JOHNSON</span> </div>
<div>Fox<span> and Schock, JJ., concur </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Announced October 10, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Robinson <span>&amp; Henry, P.C., Marlana A. Caruso, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, for </span>
</div>
<div>Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Beltz &amp; <span>West</span>, P.C., Daniel A. <span>West</span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant</div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>This case requires us to decide whether an account </span>
</div>
<div>established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act </div>
<div>(UTMA), sections <span>11<span>-<span>50</span></span></span>-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, may be </div>
<div>considered mar<span>it</span>al property. In this dissolution of marriage </div>
<div>proceeding between Dimitri Nevedrov (husband) and Cheryl Laslo </div>
<div>Nevedrova (wife), husband asserts that the district court lacked </div>
<div>jurisdiction to divide the balance of an account established in the </div>
<div>parties’ child’s name <span>under the UTMA. We conclude that, <span></span><span>if<span> an </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>account <span>wa</span>s created under the UTMA and funds were properly </div>
<div>transferred to it<span>, </span>the account is not marital property. But we also </div>
<div>conclude that the recor<span>d </span>in this case is insufficient to determin<span></span>e </div>
<div>whether the account in question was created in compliance with </div>
<div>that statute<span>. T</span>herefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the </div>
<div>case <span>to the district court for further proceedings consistent wi<span></span>th </span>
</div>
<div>this opinion and to determine appellate attorney fees. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>After eight years of marriage<span>, </span>wife filed <span>a </span>petition for </span>
</div>
<div>dissolution.<span> <span>During the marriage, the parties had one child </span></span>
</div>
<div>together. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>The district court held a hearing to address property division </span>
</div>
<div>and parental responsibilities<span>. </span>After the hearing, the court dissolved </div>
<div>the marriage and entered permanent orders. The court divided the </div>
<div>parties<span>’</span><span> several bank account<span>s </span>and other property, including<span>, a<span>s </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>relevant here, an account <span>labeled “UGMA</span><span>_</span><span>UTMA”</span> (the account).<span> </span>
</div>
<div>The court divided the $132,950 balance of the account equally </div>
<div>between the parties. The court then ordered husband to pay wif<span></span>e </div>
<div>an equalization payment of $567,949. Based on this division and </div>
<div>other factors, the court determined that wife was entitled to sp<span></span>ousal </div>
<div>maintenance of $2,065.40 per month for three years and <span></span>two </div>
<div>months and child support in the amount of $271.08 per m<span></span>onth. </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Preservation </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>The parties understood that there were UTMA funds in </span>
</div>
<div>dispute. And they alerted the trial court to it in their joint t<span></span>rial </div>
<div>management certificate. The certificate reflected husband’s re<span></span>quest </div>
<div>that the court hold the account identified as <span>“T Rowe Price </span>
</div>
<div>UGMA_UTMA” for the child until the child’s<span> eighteenth birthday, </span>
</div>
<div>order that no withdrawal occur without a court order, and <span></span>permit </div>
<div>both parties to only add money to the account. Husband als<span></span>o </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>indicated on the parties’ joint marital spreadsheet that <span></span>the marital </div>
<div>value of the account was $0. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>By ordering the account to be split equally, the district court </span>
</div>
<div>implicitly found that it was marital property, rather than <span>t<span></span>he child’s </span>
</div>
<div>property<span>. <span>Therefore, we consider the issue preserved. <span>See </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>Madalena v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.<span>, 2023 COA <span>32</span><span>, ¶ <span></span>50 (In the civil </span></span>
</div>
<div>context, “<span>[i]f a party raises an argument to such a degree t<span></span>hat </span>
</div>
<div>the court has the opportunity <span>to</span> rule on it, that argument is </div>
<div>preserved for appeal.<span>” (quoting <span>Brown v. Am. Standard I<span></span>ns. Co. of </span></span>
</div>
<div>Wis.<span>, 2019 COA 11, ¶ 21))<span>. </span> </span>
</div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>The district court has latitude to effectuate an equitable </span>
</div>
<div>distribution of the marital estate based on the facts and </div>
<div>circumstances of each case, and we will not disturb its decision </div>
<div>absent an abuse of discretion. <span>See In re Marriage of Ba<span></span>lan<span>son</span><span>, 25 </span></span>
</div>
<div>P.3d 28, 35 (Colo. 2001). A court abuses its disc<span></span>retion when its </div>
<div>decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or a </div>
<div>misapplication of the law. <span>In re Marriage of Bergeson-Flanders</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>2022 COA 18, ¶ 10.<span> </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>And statutory interpretation is a question of law we also review </span>
</div>
<div>de novo. <span>Giguere v. SJS Fam. Enters., Ltd.</span>, 155 P.3d 462, 467 (<span></span>Colo. </div>
<div>App. 2006). </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>UTMA </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> <span>Under Colorado’s <span>UTMA, money, securities, and other prope<span></span>rty </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>can be invested in the minor<span>’s name</span>, with a custodian having a </div>
<div>fiduciary responsibility <span>to</span> prudently manage the funds in the </div>
<div>accounts. §§ 11-<span>50</span>-110, -113, C.R.S. 2024. But a person </div>
<div>establishing the account must follow the statutory guidelines under </div>
<div>the UTMA. </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Specifically, a person may make a gift or transfer of money to </span>
</div>
<div>a minor that will be governed by the UTMA<span>, </span>as long as the </div>
<div>transferor, the minor, or the custodian is a resident of Colorado on </div>
<div>the date of the gift or transfer<span>. </span>§ 11-<span>50</span>-103(1), C.R.S. 2024<span>. </span>And <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>gift or transfer to a minor made pursuant to the UTMA is </div>
<div>irrevocable and conveys to the minor indefeasibly vested legal tit<span></span>le </div>
<div>to the property. § 11-<span>50</span>-112(2), C.R.S. 2024. </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>To constitute an irrevocable gift or transfer of money under the </span>
</div>
<div>statute, the transferor must pay or deliver the money to <span>“</span>a broke<span></span>r or </div>
<div>financial institution for credit to an account in the name of the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPTKQZ7323&amp;Expires=1728651790&amp;Signature=GvIVXdCGLd7TiurK%2FkUnEeZQ9H0%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDQaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIAcdZgbHsEx5qZYwzu7eEwDOuuT88nCb6rPvaGhEtX4CAiEAx%2BMy9OqI52QEey%2BMVwgvjtVo90W1A0nLSXU16SYNX8MquQUIjf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDLj1cRULjqizRIPDZCqNBYdQbmrXAtjt9Ju19HuU5ZGK3fWcMO%2FJ%2B5q7bATT177Pw3TEC8Nuh6lsHCHyUul8TjBvsEzKOG9Qk%2B%2BKUgkZSTjT4VkeAJ0YiwG5BsyyFClOMa3laszwuzoyl%2BAGDh66kYyzKtvBdUGK6I%2BK8KC6hozJwAXw0V0KJ7BTsA4tXxlXkz4spVbBAd8cPvgKPfPudTQRgxoJp4MpxW%2FqDBhhJjKfEjBuSCJ1dTlu9oHXEwcIF8hyM3MSY1085B2434g7inMEEXq%2Feqd3Pe2ucjOdpCsA%2FSDFd3kKUd0K52mdpEfmx5jKNuOigbeLhBSowydArp2JqdELyV4IYzEvz9kXVGgPh%2F%2BUUYjJ1qNJ9hFv2CpfrG6SqL1EXsYM6z2wqev2T8RVYBk43SDfvu2lzfX07KVEjRyakWJ3hqg9AisSLjJXXnvEbZXWEKzfags3Kuwa1Asms5Uf0CzApDOPS9vlkE1Wq3kHloxyMvHoMVVHBRuxPV13YqPnu5QcnNpaOkDAqUHDUSfLGHDAzCImaxGLlHdmAbXRFaEQmLdjvY2DTPOCJeEO9KF0mgrfuPkaJZrw0WEA4iKofjol5ttrNsmi6v8IrgtJQB%2FYLymDVsqm7AYXXVYyPEFSjFgIut42LsP5%2FIp7t9cE4ZVzWNqJjO1yu10fBE7u7DJQOp7fxfJPr3r8e6lgWXoev8kSh4KGpSLxONBab0EXPY75iK3n8kYUvjhP4%2FAcrXcAGbmOMfO38U7E3lORnINhHxaNB7qAInMZv0OS9qImTD0XY1aDkbuwd38a8tgFvVptpqlOICIAJbD%2BHlYBwqWXTL2dUDOGp%2BAV6IegHtwEA%2BA4zdeEEs90H8kwslqL7k39u1hPTdlGMLWcpLgGOrEBNF274tEv1wr%2FWYpuZDuj1BSa%2FuMI%2BAQ0optw7fxyRsb%2Fao1N7isZsmxe8OfzQBSxnlcoD42MsHYu6%2B9gZgXwZprBddO710j3%2FZzCX5ojsjNzN1aOgjIvoqo%2BqWg%2F8c7jXk30N4rI%2BEpf7ZWF%2FA9w108YO0Dy2W4D%2F5ZyWF24TYCWHdm61d%2BYTwoZOTFvcalq1CVXOIwWYMVH6G%2F4n%2FdUYaReZJxIL621s8yGJL6JSoOg"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>transferor, . . . followed in substance by the words: <span>‘</span>as custodian </div>
<div>for _____ (name of minor) under the <span>“</span>Colorado Uniform Transfe<span></span>rs to </div>
<div>Minors Act.<span>””</span><span> </span>§ 11-<span>50<span>-<span>110</span></span></span>(1)(b). </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>There is no Colorado case on point that deals with how a </span>
</div>
<div>district court should handle a UTMA account in the cont<span></span>ext of </div>
<div>property division in a dissolution of marriage action<span>. </span><span>In re Marria<span></span>ge </span>
</div>
<div>of Ludwig<span>, 122 P.3d 1056, 1060-61 (Colo. App. 2005), came close, </span>
</div>
<div>addressing funds held in a Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act </div>
<div>(UGMA) account.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>There, a division of this court held that the </span>
</div>
<div>domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion wh<span></span>en it did not </div>
<div>consider funds in the U<span>GM</span>A account for purposes of the <span>parents<span></span>’ </span>
</div>
<div>support obligations<span>, </span>and that the domestic relations court lacked </div>
<div>jurisdiction to remove father as custodian of the child’s acc<span></span>ount.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>The division determined that the issue of the account<span>’s custodian</span> </div>
<div>had to be considered by a district court that obtain<span>ed</span> jurisdiction </div>
<div>over the UGMA account in a separate civil proceeding. <span>Id.</span><span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> The Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act was repealed an<span></span>d </div>
<div>reenacted as the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act in 1984. </div>
<div>Ch. 74, sec. 1, 1984 Colo. Sess. Laws 383-93. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf7" data-dest-detail='[7,"XYZ",69,121,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:237.947778px;bottom:541.995000px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> <span>Buder v. Sartore<span>, 774 P.2d 1383, 1384-<span>85</span> (Colo. 1989)<span>, </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>addressed the proper standard of investment care and </div>
<div>custodianship in a properly brought civil action concerning a U<span></span>TMA </div>
<div>account<span>. <span>In finding that the father, who served as custodian of t<span></span>he </span></span>
</div>
<div>UTMA accounts, had breach<span>ed</span> his fiduciary duty, the district court </div>
<div>replaced father with mother as the custodian. <span>Id.</span> </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>In both cases<span>, </span>the Colorado courts consider<span>ed</span> the UGMA and </span>
</div>
<div>UTMA funds to be the property of the children, not the parents. </div>
<div>The corollary to this is that, if the funds are <span>not the parents’ </span>
</div>
<div>property, they cannot be marital property. Other jurisdictions </div>
<div>interpreting the uniform act upon which our statute is based </div>
<div>directly conclude that, in the context of a dissolution of marriage </div>
<div>case,<span> UTMA accounts are not marital property. <span>See Heit<span></span>meyer v. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Arthur<span>, <span>2022-Ohio-4230, ¶ <span>30</span> (Ct. App.) (citing unpublished Ohi<span></span>o </span></span>
</div>
<div>decisions that have held that a custodial account under <span>Ohio’s</span> </div>
<div>UTMA is not marital or separate property)<span>; </span><span>In re Marriage of Kenney</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>137 S.W.3d 487, 490-91 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (accounts under </div>
<div>Iowa’s UTMA law were not marital property); <span>Guerrier v. Guerrier<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>574 S.E.2d 69, 70 n.2 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (noting that in a </div>
<div>separate domestic relations action, the court had improperly </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>considered accounts <span>owned by the parties’ children under <span></span>North </span>
</div>
<div>Carolina’s UTMA <span>to be marital property<span>);</span><span> In re Marria<span></span>ge of </span></span>
</div>
<div>Hendricks<span>, 681 N.E.2d 777<span>, </span>782 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (stock, which </span>
</div>
<div>was the subject of an irrevocable gift to the <span>parties’ </span>child under </div>
<div>Indiana’s UTMA<span>, </span>was not “marital property” that could be di<span></span>vided </div>
<div>up<span>on the dissolution of the <span>parties’ marriage)</span>. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>Although we are not bound by out-<span>of</span>-state authority, <span>see <span>Wa<span></span>l-</span></span></span>
</div>
<div>Mart Stores, Inc. v. United Food &amp; Com. Workers Int<span>’</span>l Union<span>, 2016 </span>
</div>
<div>COA 72, ¶ 17,<span> </span>we find these authorities persuasive<span>, <span>see</span></span><span> People in </span>
</div>
<div>Interest of C.L.S.<span>, <span>313 P.3d 662, 666 (Colo. App. 2011) (when </span></span>
</div>
<div>interpreting a Colorado statute based on a uniform act, <span></span>“<span>we may </span>
</div>
<div>look to authority from other states interpreting their versions of the </div>
<div>code for persuasive <span>authority”). </span>Therefore, we conclude that <span></span>if the </div>
<div>account was established under the UTMA, the district <span></span>court erred </div>
<div>by<span> treating it as marital property and dividing the funds between </span>
</div>
<div>husband and wife. </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>But<span> on this record, we cannot determine whether this account </span></span>
</div>
<div>was established under the UTMA. It is t<span>rue</span> that the account is </div>
<div>identified as <span>“UGMA_UTMA”</span> <span>on husband’s bank statements</span>. But </div>
<div>no evidence in the record indicates that husband <span>de</span>livered the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPTKQZ7323&amp;Expires=1728651790&amp;Signature=GvIVXdCGLd7TiurK%2FkUnEeZQ9H0%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDQaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIAcdZgbHsEx5qZYwzu7eEwDOuuT88nCb6rPvaGhEtX4CAiEAx%2BMy9OqI52QEey%2BMVwgvjtVo90W1A0nLSXU16SYNX8MquQUIjf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDLj1cRULjqizRIPDZCqNBYdQbmrXAtjt9Ju19HuU5ZGK3fWcMO%2FJ%2B5q7bATT177Pw3TEC8Nuh6lsHCHyUul8TjBvsEzKOG9Qk%2B%2BKUgkZSTjT4VkeAJ0YiwG5BsyyFClOMa3laszwuzoyl%2BAGDh66kYyzKtvBdUGK6I%2BK8KC6hozJwAXw0V0KJ7BTsA4tXxlXkz4spVbBAd8cPvgKPfPudTQRgxoJp4MpxW%2FqDBhhJjKfEjBuSCJ1dTlu9oHXEwcIF8hyM3MSY1085B2434g7inMEEXq%2Feqd3Pe2ucjOdpCsA%2FSDFd3kKUd0K52mdpEfmx5jKNuOigbeLhBSowydArp2JqdELyV4IYzEvz9kXVGgPh%2F%2BUUYjJ1qNJ9hFv2CpfrG6SqL1EXsYM6z2wqev2T8RVYBk43SDfvu2lzfX07KVEjRyakWJ3hqg9AisSLjJXXnvEbZXWEKzfags3Kuwa1Asms5Uf0CzApDOPS9vlkE1Wq3kHloxyMvHoMVVHBRuxPV13YqPnu5QcnNpaOkDAqUHDUSfLGHDAzCImaxGLlHdmAbXRFaEQmLdjvY2DTPOCJeEO9KF0mgrfuPkaJZrw0WEA4iKofjol5ttrNsmi6v8IrgtJQB%2FYLymDVsqm7AYXXVYyPEFSjFgIut42LsP5%2FIp7t9cE4ZVzWNqJjO1yu10fBE7u7DJQOp7fxfJPr3r8e6lgWXoev8kSh4KGpSLxONBab0EXPY75iK3n8kYUvjhP4%2FAcrXcAGbmOMfO38U7E3lORnINhHxaNB7qAInMZv0OS9qImTD0XY1aDkbuwd38a8tgFvVptpqlOICIAJbD%2BHlYBwqWXTL2dUDOGp%2BAV6IegHtwEA%2BA4zdeEEs90H8kwslqL7k39u1hPTdlGMLWcpLgGOrEBNF274tEv1wr%2FWYpuZDuj1BSa%2FuMI%2BAQ0optw7fxyRsb%2Fao1N7isZsmxe8OfzQBSxnlcoD42MsHYu6%2B9gZgXwZprBddO710j3%2FZzCX5ojsjNzN1aOgjIvoqo%2BqWg%2F8c7jXk30N4rI%2BEpf7ZWF%2FA9w108YO0Dy2W4D%2F5ZyWF24TYCWHdm61d%2BYTwoZOTFvcalq1CVXOIwWYMVH6G%2F4n%2FdUYaReZJxIL621s8yGJL6JSoOg"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>money to T. Rowe Price, followed by a declaration that he was the </div>
<div>custodian for the child under the UTMA, as required by section 1<span></span>1-</div>
<div>50<span>-<span>110<span>(1)(b).</span></span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> <span>Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s <span>judgment and </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>remand the matter for the court to take additional evidence and </div>
<div>make findings on whether the account was created under the </div>
<div>UTMA.</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>If <span>so</span>, the court could not divide the account as marital </span>
</div>
<div>property and must recalculate its property division. After </div>
<div>recalculating the property division, the court must then revisit it<span></span>s </div>
<div>determinations of spousal maintenance and child support. <span></span> <span>See In </span>
</div>
<div>re Marriage of de Koning<span>, <span>2016 CO 2, ¶ <span>22</span> (when a district court </span></span>
</div>
<div>revisits a property division in a marriage dissolution<span></span>, it must also </div>
<div>reevaluate maintenance and child support determinations because </div>
<div>the issues are interdependent). </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>Hu</span>sband indicated in the <span>parties’ </span>joint trial management<span></span> </div>
<div>certificate that the account should be held for the minor chil<span></span>d until </div>
<div>eighteen years of age. But an account established under the UTM<span></span>A </div>
<div>does not terminate and the funds may not transfer to the <span></span>mino<span>r </span>
</div>
<div>until the minor turns twenty-one. § 11-<span>50</span>-121(1)(a), C.R.S.<span></span> 2024. </div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> Wife contends that husband transferred marital assets int<span></span>o the </div>
<div>account after she filed the petition for dissolution of marriage. <span></span> We </div>
<div>take no position on this assertion, as we are remanding the <span></span>matter </div>
<div>to the district court to take additional evidence. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pfa" data-dest-detail='[10,"XYZ",69,219,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:201.109444px;bottom:794.011111px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="#pfa" data-dest-detail='[10,"XYZ",69,137,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:148.516111px;bottom:626.021667px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>V.<span> <span>Appellate Attorney Fees </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Wife requests an award of appellate attorney fees under </span>
</div>
<div>section 13-<span>17</span>-102, C.R.S. 2024<span>, arguing that husband’s appeal </span>
</div>
<div>lacks substantial justification. Given our disposition, we deny </div>
<div>wife’s<span> request. <span>See In re Marriage of Collins</span><span>, </span>2023 COA 116M, ¶ 87. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Wife also requests her appellate attorney fees pursuant to </span>
</div>
<div>section <span>14<span>-<span>10</span></span></span><span>-<span>119</span></span>, C.R.S. 2024, in consideration of the financial </div>
<div>disparity that exists between the parties. Because the district <span></span>court </div>
<div>is better equipped to determine the factual issues regarding t<span></span>he </div>
<div>parties’ current financial resources, we remand <span>the issue of wheth<span></span>er </span>
</div>
<div>wife should be awarded reasonable appellate attorney fees to t<span></span>he </div>
<div>district court<span>. </span><span>See In re Marriage of Bochner</span>, 2023 COA 63, ¶ 22; </div>
<div>see also In re Marriage of Schaefer<span>, 2022 COA 112, ¶ 37 (holding </span>
</div>
<div>that wif<span>e’s request for award of her attorney fees associate<span></span>d with </span>
</div>
<div>successful appeal of maintenance and child support awards w<span></span>ould </div>
<div>be considered on remand). </div>
<div>VI.<span> </span><span>Conclusion </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>We reverse the judgment and remand the case for the district </span>
</div>
<div>court to make further findings on the UTMA account<span>, </span>reconsider </div>
<div>other issues identified in this opinion as may be necessary following </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>resolution of the UTMA account issue, and <span>consider wife’s request </span>
</div>
<div>for appellate attorney fees under section 14-<span>10<span>-<span>119</span></span></span>. </div>
<div>JUDGE FOX and JUDGE SCHOCK concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>