In re the Marriage of Konstantina Dadiotis, Appellee, and Peter Dadiotis, Appellant
City and County of Denver District Court No. 03DR2950. Honorable William D. Robbins, Judge.
No Appearance for Appellee.
Law Office of Gary P. Johnson, Gary P. Johnson, Alison H. Shunneson, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant.
Opinion by JUDGE FURMAN. Taubman and Dunn, JJ., concur.
[¶1] In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, Peter Dadiotis (husband) appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to terminate his maintenance obligation to Konstantina Dadiotis (wife). Husband contends that his maintenance should be terminated because his wife violated C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) by not revealing her income from a betting business in Greece when the two stipulated in 2008 to his paying her $750 per month in maintenance for ten years. In a related issue, husband contends that his maintenance should be terminated because he materially relied on wife's fraudulent conduct. Because we conclude C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) does not permit the court to redetermine maintenance and we disagree that wife's conduct was fraudulent, we affirm the district court's order.
[¶2] In 2004, after husband failed to appear for the hearing on permanent orders, the district court ordered him to pay wife maintenance of $1000 per month until her death or remarriage. In 2008, just before a hearing on husband's motion to modify maintenance, the parties reached a stipulation requiring husband to pay wife $750 per month for ten years. The stipulation provided that husband's maintenance could not be changed for any reason. In 2009, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation and adopted it as an order of the court.
[¶3] In 2012, husband discovered, apparently through inquiries to the Greek government, income reported by his wife's betting business, but not revealed by her during the 2008 proceedings. He filed a motion in the district court to terminate maintenance. In his motion, husband alleged wife did not fully comply with C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10).
[¶4] After a hearing, the district court denied husband's motion, finding that wife's nondisclosure was not material because husband had also participated in the betting business during the marriage and was thus aware of its income and expenses.
[¶5] We first consider whether husband's maintenance should be terminated because wife did not fully comply with C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10). Because we conclude that C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) does not apply to husband's motion to terminate maintenance, we affirm the district court's order based on different reasoning. See In re Marriage of Rodrick, 176 P.3d 806, 810 (Colo. App. 2007) ( " An appellate court may affirm a trial court's correct judgment based on different reasoning than the trial court used." ).
[¶6] We review de novo the legal issue whether C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) applies to husband's motion. See Hiner v. Johnson, 2012 COA 164, ¶ 12, 310 P.3d 226. We interpret C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(10) according to the principles of statutory construction, looking first to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. See id. at ¶ 13. If the language used in a rule is plain and the meaning is clear, it must be applied as ...