In re Marriage of Allen
691 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1984) (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An innocent spouse who receives property traceable to embezzled funds as part of a marital dissolution property settlement is not a bona fide purchaser for value. Instead, the spouse is an innocent donee, and the victim of the embezzlement may impose a constructive trust or equitable lien upon the property to prevent unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- Roger Allen, a vice-president at United Mortgage Company (UMC), embezzled $589,823.24 from the company during 1979 and 1980.
- Roger Allen used approximately $190,000 of the embezzled funds for the construction of the family home he shared with his wife, Pamela Allen.
- He used an additional $40,000 of the stolen money for furnishings and $13,000 for a Jaguar automobile.
- In February 1980, Roger and Pamela Allen dissolved their marriage, incorporating a property settlement agreement into the decree.
- Under the settlement, Pamela received $93,200 in cash and a $75,000 promissory note secured by the family home in exchange for conveying her interest in that home to Roger.
- Roger obtained $90,000 of the cash payment to Pamela by taking out a loan secured by a second deed of trust on the family home.
- Pamela used the proceeds to purchase another residence, which she later sold, eventually using the funds to acquire an interest in a home in Florida.
- In March 1980, after the dissolution was final, UMC discovered Roger's embezzlement.
Procedural Posture:
- The marriage of Roger and Pamela Allen was dissolved by a decree in a Colorado trial court, which incorporated their stipulated property settlement agreement.
- After UMC discovered Roger Allen's embezzlement, Roger filed a post-judgment motion in the dissolution action to set aside the settlement.
- UMC filed a motion to intervene in the dissolution action, which the trial court granted.
- UMC requested that the property division be set aside and that a constructive trust be imposed on assets received by Pamela.
- The trial court denied UMC's request, ruling that Pamela Allen was a bona fide purchaser for value.
- UMC, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a specific statute allowed UMC to impose a constructive trust.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an innocent spouse who receives property traceable to embezzled funds as part of a good-faith property settlement agreement in a dissolution of marriage proceeding a bona fide purchaser for value, thereby cutting off the equitable claims of the embezzler's victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Lohr, Justice
No. An innocent spouse who receives property traceable to embezzled funds through a divorce settlement is not a bona fide purchaser for value but is instead considered an innocent donee. The equitable claims of the victim of the embezzlement are not cut off, and the victim can impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the property to prevent unjust enrichment. The court reasoned that the focus should not be on a strict definition of 'value,' such as the relinquishment of marital claims, but on whether the receiving spouse would be unjustly enriched. Because the property was acquired with stolen funds, it was never truly a marital asset subject to division. Allowing Pamela Allen to retain title to the proceeds of her ex-husband's embezzlement would unjustly enrich her at the expense of UMC, the rightful owner of the funds. As an innocent donee, she holds the property subject to UMC's pre-existing equitable interests, though her liability is limited to the extent of her unjust enrichment once she has notice of the claim.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical precedent for property division in divorces where marital assets are later found to be the product of fraud or theft. It clarifies that a property settlement agreement, while a valid contract between spouses, does not cleanse the illicit origin of assets. The court prioritizes the equitable remedy of restitution for a victim over the finality of a divorce settlement, preventing the innocent spouse from being unjustly enriched. This holding forces courts in similar future cases to 'look through' a divorce decree to trace the source of funds, potentially unwinding settlements to satisfy the claims of a defrauded third party.
Unlock the full brief for In re Marriage of Allen