In re the Marriage of Nevedrova

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY
October 10, 2024

2024COA112

No. 23CA1278, In re the Marriage of Nevedrova — Family Law
— Dissolution — Disposition of Property — Marital Property;
Financial Institutions — Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors
Act — Transfers to Minors

A division of the court of appeals concludes that an account

established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act,

sections 11-50-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, is property of the minor.

Therefore it may not be considered marital property subject to

property division in a dissolution of marriage action.
COURT OF APPEALS 2024COA112

Court of Appeals No. 23CA1278
El Paso County District Court No. 21DR31895
Honorable Jill M. Brady, Judge

In re the Marriage of

Cheryl Laslo Nevedrova,

Appellee,

and

Dmitri Nevedrov,

Appellant.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division II
Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON
Fox and Schock, JJ., concur

Announced October 10, 2024

Robinson & Henry, P.C., Marlana A. Caruso, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, for
Appellee

Beltz & West, P.C., Daniel A. West, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant
¶1 This case requires us to decide whether an account

established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act

(UTMA), sections 11-50-101 to -126, C.R.S. 2024, may be

considered marital property. In this dissolution of marriage

proceeding between Dimitri Nevedrov (husband) and Cheryl Laslo

Nevedrova (wife), husband asserts that the district court lacked

jurisdiction to divide the balance of an account established in the

parties’ child’s name under the UTMA. We conclude that, if an

account was created under the UTMA and funds were properly

transferred to it, the account is not marital property. But we also

conclude that the record in this case is insufficient to determine

whether the account in question was created in compliance with

that statute. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the

case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion and to determine appellate attorney fees.

I. Background

¶2 After eight years of marriage, wife filed a petition for

dissolution. During the marriage, the parties had one child

together.

1
¶3 The district court held a hearing to address property division

and parental responsibilities. After the hearing, the court dissolved

the marriage and entered permanent orders. The court divided the

parties’ several bank accounts and other property, including, as

relevant here, an account labeled “UGMA_UTMA” (the account).

The court divided the $132,950 balance of the account equally

between the parties. The court then ordered husband to pay wife

an equalization payment of $567,949. Based on this division and

other factors, the court determined that wife was entitled to spousal

maintenance of $2,065.40 per month for three years and two

months and child support in the amount of $271.08 per month.

II. Preservation

¶4 The parties understood that there were UTMA funds in

dispute. And they alerted the trial court to it in their joint trial

management certificate. The certificate reflected husband’s request

that the court hold the account identified as “T Rowe Price

UGMA_UTMA” for the child until the child’s eighteenth birthday,

order that no withdrawal occur without a court order, and permit

both parties to only add money to the account. Husband also

2
indicated on the parties’ joint marital spreadsheet that the marital

value of the account was $0.

¶5 By ordering the account to be split equally, the district court

implicitly found that it was marital property, rather than the child’s

property. Therefore, we consider the issue preserved. See

Madalena v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2023 COA 32, ¶ 50 (In the civil

context, “[i]f a party raises an argument to such a degree that

the court has the opportunity to rule on it, that argument is

preserved for appeal.” (quoting Brown v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of

Wis., 2019 COA 11, ¶ 21)).

III. Standard of Review

¶6 The district court has latitude to effectuate an equitable

distribution of the marital estate based on the facts and

circumstances of each case, and we will not disturb its decision

absent an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Balanson, 25

P.3d 28, 35 (Colo. 2001). A court abuses its discretion when its

decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or a

misapplication of the law. In re Marriage of Bergeson-Flanders,

2022 COA 18, ¶ 10.

3
¶7 And statutory interpretation is a question of law we also review

de novo. Giguere v. SJS Fam. Enters., Ltd., 155 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo.

App. 2006).

IV. UTMA

¶8 Under Colorado’s UTMA, money, securities, and other property

can be invested in the minor’s name, with a custodian having a

fiduciary responsibility to prudently manage the funds in the

accounts. §§ 11-50-110, -113, C.R.S. 2024. But a person

establishing the account must follow the statutory guidelines under

the UTMA.

¶9 Specifically, a person may make a gift or transfer of money to

a minor that will be governed by the UTMA, as long as the

transferor, the minor, or the custodian is a resident of Colorado on

the date of the gift or transfer. § 11-50-103(1), C.R.S. 2024. And a

gift or transfer to a minor made pursuant to the UTMA is

irrevocable and conveys to the minor indefeasibly vested legal title

to the property. § 11-50-112(2), C.R.S. 2024.

¶ 10 To constitute an irrevocable gift or transfer of money under the

statute, the transferor must pay or deliver the money to “a broker or

financial institution for credit to an account in the name of the

4
transferor, . . . followed in substance by the words: ‘as custodian

for _____ (name of minor) under the “Colorado Uniform Transfers to

Minors Act.”” § 11-50-110(1)(b).

¶ 11 There is no Colorado case on point that deals with how a

district court should handle a UTMA account in the context of

property division in a dissolution of marriage action. In re Marriage

of Ludwig, 122 P.3d 1056, 1060-61 (Colo. App. 2005), came close,

addressing funds held in a Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act

(UGMA) account.1 There, a division of this court held that the

domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion when it did not

consider funds in the UGMA account for purposes of the parents’

support obligations, and that the domestic relations court lacked

jurisdiction to remove father as custodian of the child’s account.

The division determined that the issue of the account’s custodian

had to be considered by a district court that obtained jurisdiction

over the UGMA account in a separate civil proceeding. Id.

1 The Colorado Uniform Gifts to Minors Act was repealed and

reenacted as the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act in 1984.
Ch. 74, sec. 1, 1984 Colo. Sess. Laws 383-93.

5
¶ 12 Buder v. Sartore, 774 P.2d 1383, 1384-85 (Colo. 1989),

addressed the proper standard of investment care and

custodianship in a properly brought civil action concerning a UTMA

account. In finding that the father, who served as custodian of the

UTMA accounts, had breached his fiduciary duty, the district court

replaced father with mother as the custodian. Id.

¶ 13 In both cases, the Colorado courts considered the UGMA and

UTMA funds to be the property of the children, not the parents.

The corollary to this is that, if the funds are not the parents’

property, they cannot be marital property. Other jurisdictions

interpreting the uniform act upon which our statute is based

directly conclude that, in the context of a dissolution of marriage

case, UTMA accounts are not marital property. See Heitmeyer v.

Arthur, 2022-Ohio-4230, ¶ 30 (Ct. App.) (citing unpublished Ohio

decisions that have held that a custodial account under Ohio’s

UTMA is not marital or separate property); In re Marriage of Kenney,

137 S.W.3d 487, 490-91 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (accounts under

Iowa’s UTMA law were not marital property); Guerrier v. Guerrier,

574 S.E.2d 69, 70 n.2 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (noting that in a

separate domestic relations action, the court had improperly

6
considered accounts owned by the parties’ children under North

Carolina’s UTMA to be marital property); In re Marriage of

Hendricks, 681 N.E.2d 777, 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (stock, which

was the subject of an irrevocable gift to the parties’ child under

Indiana’s UTMA, was not “marital property” that could be divided

upon the dissolution of the parties’ marriage).

¶ 14 Although we are not bound by out-of-state authority, see Wal-

Mart Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers Int’l Union, 2016

COA 72, ¶ 17, we find these authorities persuasive, see People in

Interest of C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662, 666 (Colo. App. 2011) (when

interpreting a Colorado statute based on a uniform act, “we may

look to authority from other states interpreting their versions of the

code for persuasive authority”). Therefore, we conclude that if the

account was established under the UTMA, the district court erred

by treating it as marital property and dividing the funds between

husband and wife.

¶ 15 But on this record, we cannot determine whether this account

was established under the UTMA. It is true that the account is

identified as “UGMA_UTMA” on husband’s bank statements. But

no evidence in the record indicates that husband delivered the

7
money to T. Rowe Price, followed by a declaration that he was the

custodian for the child under the UTMA, as required by section 11-

50-110(1)(b).2

¶ 16 Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and

remand the matter for the court to take additional evidence and

make findings on whether the account was created under the

UTMA.3 If so, the court could not divide the account as marital

property and must recalculate its property division. After

recalculating the property division, the court must then revisit its

determinations of spousal maintenance and child support. See In

re Marriage of de Koning, 2016 CO 2, ¶ 22 (when a district court

revisits a property division in a marriage dissolution, it must also

reevaluate maintenance and child support determinations because

the issues are interdependent).

2 Husband indicated in the parties’ joint trial management

certificate that the account should be held for the minor child until
eighteen years of age. But an account established under the UTMA
does not terminate and the funds may not transfer to the minor
until the minor turns twenty-one. § 11-50-121(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024.
3 Wife contends that husband transferred marital assets into the

account after she filed the petition for dissolution of marriage. We
take no position on this assertion, as we are remanding the matter
to the district court to take additional evidence.

8
V. Appellate Attorney Fees

¶ 17 Wife requests an award of appellate attorney fees under

section 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2024, arguing that husband’s appeal

lacks substantial justification. Given our disposition, we deny

wife’s request. See In re Marriage of Collins, 2023 COA 116M, ¶ 87.

¶ 18 Wife also requests her appellate attorney fees pursuant to

section 14-10-119, C.R.S. 2024, in consideration of the financial

disparity that exists between the parties. Because the district court

is better equipped to determine the factual issues regarding the

parties’ current financial resources, we remand the issue of whether

wife should be awarded reasonable appellate attorney fees to the

district court. See In re Marriage of Bochner, 2023 COA 63, ¶ 22;

see also In re Marriage of Schaefer, 2022 COA 112, ¶ 37 (holding

that wife’s request for award of her attorney fees associated with

successful appeal of maintenance and child support awards would

be considered on remand).

VI. Conclusion

¶ 19 We reverse the judgment and remand the case for the district

court to make further findings on the UTMA account, reconsider

other issues identified in this opinion as may be necessary following

9
resolution of the UTMA account issue, and consider wife’s request

for appellate attorney fees under section 14-10-119.

JUDGE FOX and JUDGE SCHOCK concur.

10