In re Marriage of Lafleur v. Pyfer - 2021 CO 3, 479 P.3d 869

Rule:

The general rule is that a statute that is declared unconstitutional is void ab initio; it is inoperative as if it had never been enacted. Consequently, state law restrictions held unconstitutional in Obergefell cannot serve as an impediment to the recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision. Indeed, recognition of a same-sex marriage is the remedy for a state's earlier violation of a couple's constitutional rights. Moreover, because Obergefell held that states must allow same-sex couples to enter marriages on the same terms and conditions as different-sex couples, and because Colorado recognizes common law marriages between different-sex couples, it therefore must also recognize such marriages between same-sex couples—including those entered into pre-Obergefell.

Facts:

In 2018, Respondent Timothy Pyfer filed a dissolution of marriage petition, alleging that he had entered into a common law marriage with his same-sex partner, Petitioner Dean LaFleur, when they held a ceremony before family and friends on November 30, 2003, and exchanged vows and rings. LaFleur countered that Pyfer's claim was legally impossible because at the time of the 2003 ceremony, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. In the interim, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 674-75, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015), that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry and struck down state laws that excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage as unconstitutional. The district court recognized the parties’ same-sex marriage. The district court then proceeded with the dissolution proceedings and entered a dissolution decree and permanent orders. Pyfer appealed, arguing that the division of property was inequitable and not supported by sufficient findings. 

Issue:

1. Did the district court err in recognizing the couples’ same-sex marriage, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the ceremony, the State of Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages? 
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in its allocation of the marital assets and debts between the couple? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

Because the state laws excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage were struck down as unconstitutional, they could not stand as an impediment to the recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision, but rather were treated as if they never existed. Thus, the district court did not err by recognizing the couple’s common law same-sex marriage entered in Colorado before the state recognized same-sex couples' fundamental right to marry. However, the district court abused its discretion in allocating the marital assets and debts between the couple because it did not make adequate findings or adequately consider the statutory factors pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-113. The district court also abused its discretion in awarding a grossly inadequate award of spousal maintenance as it failed to adequately consider the statutory factors in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-114.