Marriage of Kostecki

25CA0275 Marriage of Kostecki 06-25-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0275
Boulder County District Court No. 23DR30135
Honorable Andrew Hartman, Judge

In re the Marriage of

Curtis W. Kostecki,

Appellant and Cross-Appellee,

and

Amy Dawn Kostecki,

Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE BROWN
Freyre and Schutz, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced June 25, 2026

O’Brien Law Firm, LLC, Shauna O’Brien, Lafayette, Colorado, for Appellant and
Cross-Appellee

Robert M. Dwyer, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee and Cross-Appellant
¶1 In this dissolution of marriage proceeding between Curtis W.

Kostecki (husband) and Amy Dawn Kostecki (wife), husband

appeals the district court’s amended permanent orders dividing

their marital property. We reverse and remand the case to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

¶2 Husband and wife married in 2006 and have three children,

two of whom were minors at the time of the dissolution. After the

district court issued its permanent orders, husband filed a motion

to amend the findings and judgment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 and

60, along with a revised property allocation spreadsheet. The court

amended its permanent orders, issuing its own revised property

allocation spreadsheet.

¶3 As relevant to husband’s appeal, in the amended permanent

orders, the court allocated two marital real properties as follows:

• The court allocated the marital residence to husband. It

determined that the “net equity value” of the marital

residence was $164,643.74. It then ordered husband to

pay wife $82,321.87 for her half of the “net equity value.”

1
• The court allocated a commercial property to husband. It

determined that the “net equity value” of the commercial

property was $106,171.35. It then ordered husband to pay

wife $53,085.68 for her half of the “net equity value.”

• The court ordered husband to make these payments —

which it characterized as an “equalization payment” and

which totaled $135,407.55 — to wife by a certain deadline

or he would be required to sell the properties.1

¶4 The court proceeded to divide the remaining marital assets

and debts between the parties. When summarizing its equitable

division of marital property in the written permanent orders, the

court indicated that it allocated $154,801.01 in marital assets to

wife and $156,800.07 in marital assets to husband. The court did

not indicate whether these figures accounted for the equalization

payment husband was to make to wife for her share of the equity in

the marital properties, but it appears that the court added the

1 In the written permanent order, the district court transposed some

numbers and ordered husband to pay wife $82,231.87 as her share
of equity from the marital home. But half of $164,643.74 is
$82,321.87. And that figure plus $53,085.68, representing wife’s
half of the equity of the commercial property, equals $135,407.55.

2
equalization payment to wife’s allocation but did not subtract it

from husband’s. Indeed, the property allocation spreadsheet

accompanying the amended permanent orders reflected that the

court allocated $19,393.46 in marital assets to wife and

$156,800.07 in marital assets to husband before accounting for the

equalization payment.

¶5 Husband filed a second motion to amend the permanent

orders, arguing that the court miscalculated the total marital debt

by $3,250 (the cost of a private school tuition payment)2 and either

miscalculated wife’s equalization payment or inequitably distributed

the marital estate eighty-eight percent to wife and twelve percent to

husband. The court denied husband’s second motion to amend.

Husband appeals.3

2 Husband reraises this contention on appeal. As best we can tell,
the district court in fact allocated this debt to wife; it simply failed
to include it in the total value of the marital estate. The figures we
use in this opinion for the total value of the marital estate account
for this debt, so we need not address the argument further. The
parties may ask the court to clarify this issue on remand.
3 Although wife initially filed a cross-appeal, she abandoned it in

her answer brief.

3
II. Legal Framework and Standards of Review

¶6 The district court has great latitude to equitably distribute

marital property based on the facts and circumstances of the case,

and we will not disturb its decision absent a clear abuse of

discretion. In re Marriage of Balanson, 25 P.3d 28, 35 (Colo. 2001);

see In re Marriage of Wright, 2020 COA 11, ¶ 3 (property division

does not have to be equal, just equitable); In re Marriage of Fischer,

834 P.2d 270, 272 (Colo. App. 1992) (the mechanism employed by

the district court in dividing marital property is a matter within its

discretion). The district court abuses its discretion when its

decision is manifestly arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable, or when it

misapplies the law. In re Marriage of McSoud, 131 P.3d 1208, 1212

(Colo. App. 2006).

¶7 The court must make sufficiently explicit findings of fact and

conclusions of law to give us a clear understanding of the basis of

its order and to enable us to determine the grounds upon which it

rendered its decision. In re Marriage of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815, 822

(Colo. App. 2008). We review the adequacy of the court’s ruling de

novo. People v. Shifrin, 2014 COA 14, ¶ 90.

4
III. Analysis

¶8 Husband argues that the court erred in allocating

$154,801.01 in marital assets to wife and $156,800.07 in marital

assets to husband because that allocation exceeds the total value of

the marital estate, which was $176,193.53 ($156,800.07 allocated

to husband before equalization + $19,393.46 allocated to wife

before equalization = $176,193.53). He argues that to equalize the

disproportionate allocation of the estate, he should have been

ordered to pay wife $68,703.31 ($156,800.07 - $19,393.46 =

$137,406.61 ÷ 2 = $68,703.31) rather than $135,407.55.

¶9 Alternatively, husband argues that if the court truly intended

to allocate roughly $154,800 to wife, it erred by inequitably

allocating eighty-eight percent of the marital estate to wife

($19,393.46 + $135,407.55 equalization payment = $154,801.01 ÷

$176,193.53 = 87.9%) and only twelve percent to him

($156,800.07 - $135,407.55 equalization payment = $21,392.52 ÷

$176,193.53 = 12.1%).

¶ 10 We cannot discern what outcome the district court intended.

Some parts of the amended permanent orders suggest that the

court intended a roughly equal division of the marital estate. For

5
example, it divided the net equity in the marital real properties

equally. And when it summarized how much of the marital estate it

believed it had allocated to each party, the split was roughly

fifty-fifty ($154,801.01 to wife and $156,800.07 to husband). But if

the court truly wished to divide the estate equally, it made a

mathematical error. The amended permanent orders required

husband to pay wife half of the net equity in the parties’ real

properties as an equalization payment. Although the court added

the equalization payment to wife’s share of the marital estate, it did

not subtract the equalization payment from husband’s share,

artificially inflating husband’s share and the equalization payment

needed to balance the distribution. Husband is correct that, to

divide the estate equally, the court should have ordered him to pay

wife roughly $68,700.

¶ 11 Alternatively, some parts of the amended permanent orders

suggest that the court intended a lopsided allocation to wife. For

example, the court found the equalization payment to wife to be

“fair and equitable because [husband] will maintain ownership of

the marital property and may elect to either maintain or sell the

assets.” The court also noted that husband was allocated his

6
business and “maintains higher earning potential” from the

business and real properties. But it noted these things immediately

after summarizing a roughly fifty-fifty division of the marital estate.

If the court truly intended to allocate wife eighty-eight percent of the

marital estate, it should have clearly said so and explained why

such a disproportionate allocation was nonetheless equitable.

¶ 12 Given this record, we cannot discern the court’s intention: to

allocate the estate equally or to allocate a significantly

disproportionate share to wife. See Rozzi, 190 P.3d at 822.

Accordingly, we reverse the property division provisions of the

amended permanent orders and remand the case to the district

court for clarification or reconsideration of the entire property

division as necessary. See In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149,

¶ 30, aff’d, 2021 CO 12; In re Marriage of Vittetoe, 2016 COA 71,

¶ 38. If the court reconsiders the property division, it must

consider the parties’ economic circumstances at the time of the

remand, Zander, ¶ 30, and reconsider its award of $1 in nominal

maintenance payable to wife, In re Marriage of Nevarez, 170 P.3d

808, 815 (Colo. App. 2007). But because “property shall be valued

as of the date of the decree or as of the date of the hearing on

7
disposition of property if such hearing precedes the date of the

decree,” § 14-10-113(5), C.R.S. 2025; In re Marriage of Finer, 920

P.2d 325, 331 (Colo. App. 1996), and because no party challenged

the valuation of any marital asset, the court should use the same

property and debt valuations it found in its amended permanent

orders. See In re Marriage of Capparelli, 2024 COA 103M, ¶ 26.

The court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law that

will enable a reviewing court to understand the basis of its order

and determine the grounds upon which it rendered its decision.

See Rozzi, 190 P.3d at 822.

IV. Disposition

¶ 13 The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE SCHUTZ concur.

8