In Re Marriage Of Thornhill

200 P.3d 1083 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H worked various jobs in the oil and natural gas industries while W worked part-time at miscellaneous low wage jobs and cared for the parties’ three children. W returned to school in 1995 when the parties’ youngest child was in middle school, ultimately earning a master’s degree in occupational therapy. At the time of the permanent orders hearing, Wife was working in that field and earned a gross income of approximately $4,790.00 per month. H’s earnings increased significantly in the last few years of marriage after he formed his own oil and gas service company, NRG, in 2001. An expert retained by H valued his ownership interest in NRG at $1.625 million after applying a thirty-three percent marketability discount. H indicated a total monthly income before expenses of approximately $15,000. W requested temporary maintenance. The magistrate ultimately awarded W temporary maintenance of $12,000 per month until permanent orders, retroactive to May 2006 when Wife filed her motion requesting temporary orders. W's experts valued NRG at $2.5 million. (without the thirty-three percent marketability discount). The trial court found the separation agreement -- which used a valuation of H’s interest in NRG that included the marketability discount -- enforceable and entered it as an order of the court. The trial court also adopted the magistrate’s order regarding temporary maintenance. The court of appeals reversed both of these rulings. The court of appeals found the separation agreement to be unconscionable and unenforceable. The court of appeals rejected an extension of the decision in Pueblo. Additionally, the court of appeals reversed the award of temporary maintenance on the ground that the magistrate’s findings were unclear and conflicting. W appealed.