In re the Marriage of Jack Allen Blaine, Appellant, and Qing He, Appellee.
Jefferson County District Court No. 16DR31064 Honorable
Dennis J. Hall, Judge
Offices of Rodger C. Daley, Rodger C. Daley, Denver,
Colorado, for Appellant
GreenLaw International LLC, Ralph J. Strebel, Lakewood,
Colorado, for Appellee
Moses Ramp & Cooper, LLC, Patricia A. Cooper, Marie Avery
Moses, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Colorado Chapter
of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
1 Jack Allen Blaine (husband) appeals the permanent orders
entered on the dissolution of his marriage to Qing He (wife).
2 Because husband voluntarily conveyed real property to wife
in an interspousal transfer deed, and testified that he
intended by that conveyance that the property would be
wife's separate property, we conclude that the district
court did not err in ruling that the property was wife's
separate property, even though the deed was not a marital
agreement under the Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements
Act (UPMAA), §§ 14-2-301 to -313, C.R.S. 2019. In
so holding, we distinguish this case from In re Marriage
of Zander, 2019 COA 149.
3 We further conclude that the district court did not err by
not dividing certain funds that remained in wife's bank
account at the time of dissolution.
4 The parties' two-year marriage ended in 2018. The sole
issue for permanent orders was husband's claim that wife
had borrowed a total of $346, 500 from him in various
increments over the course of the marriage and had used the
funds primarily toward the separate property purchase of a
home in California worth $1, 100, 000. Husband argued that
wife should be ordered to repay the borrowed funds and that
it would be unconscionable for her to keep the California
home without doing so. Wife argued that the funds were given
to her by husband with no expectation of repayment.
5 After a hearing, the district court found that the first
$50, 000 husband had transferred to wife was a gift for
wife's mother and was given according to Chinese custom
with no expectation of repayment, but that the remainder of
the funds were neither loaned nor gifted but were funds
husband contributed to the marriage. However, because after
transferring the funds to wife, husband signed an
"interspousal transfer deed" conveying the
California home to her "as her sole and separate
property," any marital interest husband had in the home
based on the funds he provided "was extinguished."
Therefore, the court set aside the home as wife's
separate property. It found the increase in value of the home
during the marriage was $82, 939, and awarded that amount to
6 The court denied husband's motion to reconsider the
Failure to Set Aside the ...