WHAT IS MARITAL WASTE IN COLORADO?
Marital waste in Colorado, which courts usually call dissipation, happens when one spouse depletes the marital estate for an improper or illegitimate purpose in contemplation of divorce. Colorado divides property without regard to marital misconduct, but in extreme cases a court may treat dissipation as "economic fault" and take it into account when it divides what is left.
That exception is narrow. Ordinary spending, even spending you disagree with, is usually not dissipation, and the court decides each claim on its facts.
This guide explains how Colorado divides property, what the Court of Appeals has said about dissipation, how the automatic temporary injunction limits spending once a case is filed, how dissipation is proved, and what remedies are available.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- How Colorado Divides Property
- Economic Fault: The Narrow Exception
- What Counts and What Usually Does Not
- Timing: Spending in Contemplation of Divorce
- The Automatic Temporary Injunction
- How to Prove Dissipation
- Remedies for Dissipation
- What to Do If You Suspect Marital Waste
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Talking With a Colorado Springs Family Law Attorney
- Sources
HOW COLORADO DIVIDES PROPERTY
Colorado is not a community property state. Under C.R.S. 14-10-113, the court sets apart each spouse's separate property and divides the marital property "without regard to marital misconduct, in such proportions as the court deems just." The division is equitable, which means fair, and it is not necessarily equal.
In deciding what is just, the court considers all relevant factors, including:
- Each spouse's contribution to acquiring the marital property, including contributions as a homemaker.
- The value of the separate property set apart to each spouse.
- Each spouse's economic circumstances when the division takes effect, including the desirability of awarding the family home to the spouse with whom the children live most of the time.
- Increases or decreases in the value of separate property during the marriage, or the depletion of separate property for marital purposes.
Property is generally valued as of the decree or the property hearing. That is why dissipation matters: money that is gone by the hearing would otherwise simply be left out of the division.
ECONOMIC FAULT: THE NARROW EXCEPTION
Because the statute directs courts to disregard marital misconduct, an affair or unkind behavior is not a reason to award one spouse more property. Economic conduct can be different.
In In re Marriage of Smith, 2024 COA 95, the Colorado Court of Appeals explained that "in extreme cases, the court may consider economic fault, such as a spouse's dissipation of marital assets." When "one spouse depletes the marital estate for an improper or illegitimate purpose in contemplation of the dissolution, the court may take such conduct into account when it allocates the estate."
The court also stressed that economic fault is "strictly confined" to "extreme cases." Whether a spouse dissipated marital property is a question of fact for the trial court, and an appeals court will not disturb that finding if the record supports it.
A Violation Is Not Always Dissipation
Smith shows how fact-specific this is: a few months after filing, the wife sold about $4 million in stock without her husband's consent, and the trial court found the sale violated the automatic temporary injunction. Even so, it credited her explanation that she used the proceeds to pay down a securities-backed credit line he planned to draw on to buy a home, and it found no economic fault. The Court of Appeals deferred to that finding.
WHAT COUNTS AND WHAT USUALLY DOES NOT
No Colorado statute lists what counts as dissipation. The examples below show the kind of spending people raise, but every claim turns on the purpose, the timing, and the amount, and the court decides it on the evidence.
| Often raised as possible dissipation | Usually not dissipation |
|---|---|
| Large gambling losses after the marriage was breaking down | Rent or mortgage, groceries, utilities, and other living expenses |
| Gifts, trips, or support for a new partner paid from marital funds | Reasonable costs of the children |
| Transfers to relatives or friends for little or no value | Spending both spouses agreed to |
| Deliberately destroying property or selling it far below its value | Good-faith business or investment decisions that lost money |
| Running up debt for purposes unrelated to the marriage once divorce is in view | Spending that hurt the estate but had a legitimate explanation the court accepts |
The automatic temporary injunction itself allows spending "in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life," which gives a sense of the kind of spending the law treats as ordinary.
TIMING: SPENDING IN CONTEMPLATION OF DIVORCE
The Court of Appeals' description of dissipation focuses on depletion "in contemplation of the dissolution." Spending during an intact marriage, even foolish spending, is generally part of the shared financial life the court divides as it finds it.
There is no fixed look-back period in the statute. The question is whether, when the money was spent or moved, the spouse was acting with the divorce in view and for an improper purpose.
Transfers made shortly before filing get particular attention. In Rios de Martinez v. Landaverde, 2024 COA 115, the Court of Appeals held that one spouse may also bring a separate fraudulent transfer lawsuit against the other, and against the people who received property, when the transferring spouse had reason to know divorce proceedings were imminent or ongoing. That lawsuit must still show an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud, which a court may infer from signs such as transfers to family for little or no value.
THE AUTOMATIC TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Once a petition for divorce or legal separation is filed and the other spouse is served or accepts service, an automatic temporary injunction under C.R.S. 14-10-107 applies to both spouses. It lasts until the final decree, dismissal, or further court order.
The injunction restrains both spouses from "transferring, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing of" marital property without the other's consent or a court order, "except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life." It also requires each spouse to notify the other of any proposed extraordinary expenditures and to account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures made after the injunction takes effect.
The injunction is printed on the summons and petition and becomes an order of the court. Violating a court order can lead to contempt proceedings, which you can read about in our article on contempt of court in Colorado Springs. Either spouse may also ask the court for further temporary orders or an expanded injunction.
HOW TO PROVE DISSIPATION
The spouse who claims dissipation needs to show where the money went and why. Colorado's disclosure rules and the tools of discovery are how that evidence is gathered.
Mandatory Disclosures
Under C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(2), each spouse must provide a sworn financial statement and the mandatory disclosures, without a formal request, within 42 days after service of the petition. The Mandatory Disclosure form calls for items such as three years of personal and business tax returns, recent statements for bank, investment, and retirement accounts, and documents for personal debts.
Discovery
Discovery in a Colorado divorce is managed by the court under Rule 16.2. Common tools include written questions (interrogatories), requests for documents, depositions, which the Colorado Judicial Branch glossary defines as "testimony given under oath outside of court," and subpoenas for records held by banks, employers, and other third parties.
Tracing and Forensic Accountants
Tracing means following money from one account to the next until you can show where it ended up. In larger or more complicated estates, a forensic accountant can reconstruct the flow of funds, compare spending to income, and present the results in a form the court can use.
When the estate includes a business, investment accounts, or complex compensation, see our page on high net worth divorce in Colorado.
REMEDIES FOR DISSIPATION
If the court finds dissipation, Smith says it "may take such conduct into account when it allocates the estate." Because Colorado's standard is a division "in such proportions as the court deems just," the result can be an unequal division of the remaining property.
Other remedies can apply alongside a dissipation finding:
- Disclosure sanctions. Rule 16.2 allows the court to impose appropriate sanctions on a party who does not comply with its disclosure requirements.
- Contempt. A spouse who violates the automatic temporary injunction or another order can face contempt proceedings.
- Attorney fees. Under C.R.S. 14-10-119, the court may order one party to pay a reasonable amount of the other's attorney fees and costs after considering the financial resources of both parties.
- A separate fraudulent transfer claim. Rios de Martinez allows this in some cases involving transfers to third parties.
If the problem is hidden assets rather than spending, the rules on disclosure and the five-year window to reopen property division are covered in our article on a spouse hiding money.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU SUSPECT MARITAL WASTE
- Write down what you know. Note dates, amounts, accounts, and what you were told about each transaction.
- Keep records you lawfully have. Joint account statements, tax returns you signed, and mail addressed to you are fair to keep. Do not log into your spouse's private accounts or devices.
- Do not retaliate. Moving or spending money in response can violate the injunction and undercut your own claim.
- Act early. If a case is not filed yet, ask a lawyer whether filing promptly, so the injunction takes effect, makes sense in your situation.
- Ask about temporary orders. If spending continues after filing, your lawyer can ask the court for further temporary orders.
For an overview of how a case moves from filing to decree, see our Colorado divorce timeline.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Does Colorado Consider Adultery When Dividing Property?
No. C.R.S. 14-10-113 requires the court to divide marital property without regard to marital misconduct. Only in extreme cases may the court consider economic fault, such as dissipating marital assets for an improper purpose in contemplation of divorce.
Is Spending Money on an Affair Considered Marital Waste?
It can be raised as dissipation if marital funds were spent on a new partner for an improper purpose in contemplation of divorce. The affair itself is not a factor, and the court decides whether the spending rises to economic fault on the facts.
Can My Spouse Spend Money After We File for Divorce?
Only within limits. The automatic temporary injunction allows spending in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, and it requires notice of proposed extraordinary expenditures and an accounting to the court.
How Far Back Can a Court Look for Dissipation?
The statute sets no fixed look-back period. The question is whether a spouse depleted the marital estate for an improper purpose in contemplation of the dissolution.
Will the Court Divide Property Equally If My Spouse Wasted Money?
Colorado divides property in the proportions the court finds just, not automatically equally. If the court finds dissipation, it may take that into account, which can result in an unequal division of what remains.
TALKING WITH A COLORADO SPRINGS FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY
Dissipation claims succeed or fail on records and timing, so the earlier you get organized, the better your options. A Colorado Springs divorce lawyer can review what you have and explain what the court is likely to consider.
Moran, Allen & Associates Family Law Attorneys works with families in El Paso County and Teller County. Call (719) 447-0762 in Colorado Springs or (719) 686-7554 in Woodland Park, or schedule a free consultation to talk through your situation.
This article is general information about Colorado law as of October 2026 and is not legal advice. Laws and court procedures change, so speak with a licensed Colorado attorney about your own situation.
SOURCES
- C.R.S. 14-10-113, Disposition of Property
- C.R.S. 14-10-107, Automatic Temporary Injunction
- C.R.S. 14-10-119, Attorney Fees and Costs
- In re Marriage of Smith, 2024 COA 95, Colorado Court of Appeals Opinion
- Rios de Martinez v. Landaverde, 2024 COA 115, Colorado Court of Appeals Opinion
- Colorado Supreme Court Rule Change 2024(03), C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(2) Mandatory Disclosures
- Colorado Supreme Court Rule Change 2004(19), C.R.C.P. 16.2 Including Discovery and Sanctions
- Colorado Judicial Branch, Form 35.1 Mandatory Disclosure (JDF 1125)
- Colorado Judicial Branch, Glossary of Legal Terms