IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Carl Joseph GIBBS, Appellant, and Joellen Elizabeth Gibbs, Appellee.
Page 969
Larimer County District Court No. 12DR408, Honorable Devin R.
Odell, Judge
Thomas
& Associates Law Firm LLC, Joseph G. Williams, Greenwood
Village, Colorado, for Appellant
Alison
Ruttenberg, Louisville, Colorado; Vigil Law Offices, P.C.,
Frank G. Vigil, Lakewood, Colorado, for Appellee
OPINION
LIPINSKY, JUDGE
[¶
1] Three years after the district court entered
permanent orders in his dissolution of marriage case,
husband, Carl Joseph Gibbs, sought to modify or terminate his
maintenance obligation to wife, Joellen Elizabeth Gibbs,
under section 14-10-122(1)(a), C.R.S. 2018. Husband argued
that his alleged loss of income resulting from a shoulder
injury he incurred three years following the entry of the
permanent orders constituted a substantial and continuing
change in his circumstances that warranted a decrease in his
maintenance payments.
[¶
2] The district court denied husbands motion based
on its calculation of husbands monthly income, including
imputed rental income from husbands primary residence.
[¶
3] We affirm the portion of the decision addressing
husbands self-employment income and reverse the portion
imputing rental income to him because husband never used the
residence as an income-producing asset. We remand to
redetermine husbands maintenance obligation without
considering imputed rental income.
I.
Background
[¶
4] The parties marriage ended in 2013. In the
permanent orders, the district court awarded wife $1,850 in
monthly maintenance until the death of either party, the
remarriage or civil union of wife, or further court order.
Page 970
[¶
5] In September 2016, husband moved to modify or
terminate his maintenance obligation. He alleged that, as a
result of a severe shoulder injury, he was no longer able to
perform labor-oriented work. He further alleged that he had
been diagnosed with stenosis, which would require surgery and
affect his ability to work for the rest of his life.
[¶
6] Following a hearing at which husband, wife, and a
physician testified, the court found that husband had not
shown a substantial and continuing change in his
...