In re the Marriage of Carl Joseph Gibbs, Appellant, and Joellen Elizabeth Gibbs, Appellee.
Larimer County District Court No. 12DR408 Honorable Devin R.
& Associates Law Firm LLC, Joseph G. Williams, Greenwood
Village, Colorado, for Appellant
Ruttenberg, Louisville, Colorado; Vigil Law Offices, P.C.,
Frank G. Vigil, Lakewood, Colorado, for Appellee
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
2 The district court denied husband's motion based on its
calculation of husband's monthly income, including
imputed rental income from husband's primary residence.
3 We affirm the portion of the decision addressing
husband's 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 husband's maintenance obligation without
considering imputed rental income.
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.
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 circumstances and,
therefore, denied husband's motion.
7 Husband contends that the district court abused its
discretion in determining that his income was $6, 500 per