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 November 29, 2018

No. 17CA0864, Estate of Little — Family Law — Common Law Marriage; Probate — Wills and Will Contracts — Reformation to Correct Mistakes

The decedent executed a will during her lifetime devising her

estate to her spouse, from whom she later divorced. After her

death, her ex-husband claimed that he was entitled to inherit under

her will because he and the decedent had remarried at common law

before she died. Alternatively, he sought reformation of her will,

contending that she intended to devise her estate to him regardless

of their marital status.

The trial court found that the ex-husband, who by operation of

law was removed as a beneficiary of the decedent’s will upon their

divorce, failed to show that he and the decedent remarried at

common law. Relying on In re Estate of Johnson,

, the trial court also concluded that the decedent’s ex-husband

lacked standing to seek reformation of her will.

In this opinion, a division of the court of appeals affirms the

trial court’s finding of no common law remarriage, but reverses on

the standing issue. The division declines to follow Johnson and

instead concludes, based upon an examination of the revocation

and reformation statutory schemes, that a former spouse is not

foreclosed on standing grounds from seeking reformation under

these circumstances. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 17CA0864 Custer County District Court No. 15PR30006 Honorable Ramsey Lama, Judge

In re the Estate of Caroline Little, deceased.

Jeffrey Lynn Curry,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Humane Society of Colorado, American Cancer Society, and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Respondents-Appellees.

ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division V Opinion by JUDGE WELLING Román and Dunn, JJ., concur

Announced November 29, 2018

Evans Case, LLP, Aaron L. Evans, Timothy D. Bounds, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellant

Jenna L. Mazzucca Esq., PC, Jenna L. Mazzucca, Salida, Colorado, for Respondents-Appellees ¶1 This case involves a dispute over who is entitled to inherit the

estate of Caroline Little. On appeal, Little’s former husband, Jeffrey

Lynn Curry, first contends that the trial court erred in finding that

he and Little were not common law remarried as of the time of her

death. If they were, the parties agree that he would be entitled to

inherit her estate under the terms of her will. Curry also contends

that, even if they were not remarried, the trial court erroneously

found that he lacked standing to seek reformation of her will.

Curry sought to reform Little’s will to reflect her intention to devise

her estate to him regardless of their marital status. The contingent

beneficiaries of Little’s will, the Humane Society of Colorado, the

American Cancer Society, and the American Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (collectively, the Interested

Parties), urge us to affirm the trial court’s rulings.

¶2 Although we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in

finding that Curry and Little were not common law remarried, we

disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that Curry lacked

standing to seek reformation. We, therefore, affirm in part, reverse

in part, and remand for further proceedings on Curry’s reformation

claim.

1 I. Background

¶3 Curry and Little met in 1972 and were common law married in

1980. Together they operated a building construction and

restoration business.

¶4 In 2006, they executed mutual wills devising their estates to

each other. Little’s will stated, “I am married to Jeffrey Lynn Curry.

Any reference in my will to my spouse is to such person.” The will

devised her estate “to my spouse, if my spouse survives me.” The

will also provided that, “[i]f my spouse does not survive me,” her

estate is devised in equal shares to the Interested Parties.

¶5 They lived together in a house in Westcliffe, Colorado, until

2010. In 2010, Curry and Little divorced, and a divorce decree was

entered on March 29, 2010. After the divorce, Curry moved away,

but eventually returned to Westcliffe. Upon returning, he lived in a

church building adjacent to the house where he and Little had lived

together. Little lived in the house, which she received in the

divorce. They continued to operate their business together.

¶6 In April 2015, Little’s residence was destroyed by a fire.

Following the fire, Little moved into Curry’s residence. There, she

slept in a separate bedroom in the basement. Her insurance

2 company paid for her to rent the bedroom and furniture from

Curry. Insurance investigators spoke to Little after the fire, and in

their report, they listed Curry as her “ex-husband.”

¶7 Little died on June 19, 2015.

¶8 In January 2016, Curry filed a petition with the trial court

asserting that he was entitled to inherit Little’s estate because he

was her common law spouse at the time of her death. He also

alleged that Little intended for him to inherit her estate and

requested reformation of her will to conform with her alleged intent.

The Interested Parties opposed Curry’s petition.

¶9 In January 2017, the trial court held a two-day hearing on the

petition. At the hearing, the Interested Parties introduced evidence

that, between 2010 and 2015, Curry and Little completed forms for

tax and insurance purposes representing that they were divorced.

The Interested Parties introduced evidence that Curry and Little

filed individual tax returns in 2012 and 2013, that Little described

her relationship with Curry as that of “Bus[iness] Partner[s]” in a

loan application, that Little identified herself as divorced in an

application for Medicaid benefits, that Curry identified himself as

“separated” in an application for Medicaid benefits, and that Little

3 identified Curry as her “[e]x-husband” in a homeowner’s insurance

application. The Interested Parties also introduced a voice

recording that Little left for her insurance company identifying

Curry as her “ex-husband.”

¶ 10 Curry introduced testimony from several witnesses, including

two employees of their business and one of Little’s friends. The

employees testified that Curry and Little spent considerable time

together after the divorce and referred to each other as “husband”

and “wife” when scheduling appointments and when picking up

prescriptions at the pharmacy. Little’s friend testified that Curry

and Little resumed life as a couple after the divorce.

¶ 11 On the second day of the hearing, the trial court found that

“reformation and/or theory of mistake under common law did not

apply to the case” and dismissed Curry’s reformation claim on the

ground that he lacked standing to assert such a claim. On March

28, 2017, the trial court issued a written order making findings of

fact and concluding that Curry and Little were not remarried at

common law when she died.

4 II. Analysis

¶ 12 When a marriage — common law or otherwise — is dissolved,

any revocable disposition of property made by the divorced

individual to the former spouse is revoked by operation of law, see

§ 15-11-804(2), C.R.S. 2018, unless revocation is contrary to “the

express terms of a governing instrument, a court order, or a

contract relating to the division of the marital estate made between

the divorced individuals,” id.; In re Estate of DeWitt,

(Colo. 2002).

¶ 13 On appeal, Curry does not dispute that, based on the terms of

Little’s will, his divorce from Little removed him as a beneficiary of

her will pursuant to section 15-11-804(2). But the same statute

provides that any spousal transfer provisions in a will that are

revoked upon divorce are “revived by the divorced individual’s

remarriage to the former spouse.” § 15-11-804(5). Curry contends

that the provisions in Little’s will devising her estate to him were

revived by their common law remarriage.

¶ 14 In the alternative, Curry contends that when Little executed

her will she intended for him to inherit her estate regardless of their

marital status. On that basis, he sought to reform Little’s will

5 pursuant to section 15-11-806, C.R.S. 2018, to reflect that

intention. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erroneously

found that he lacked standing to pursue the reformation claim.

Curry does not contend that he is entitled to inherit Little’s estate

on any basis other than that (1) he and Little were remarried at

common law, or (2) Little’s intent at the time she executed the will

was for him to inherit, regardless of their marital status.

¶ 15 For the reasons below, we affirm the trial court’s finding of no

common law remarriage. But we reverse the trial court’s ruling that

Curry lacked standing to seek reformation and remand for further

proceedings on the reformation claim.

A. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Finding that Curry and Little Were Not Remarried at Common Law

¶ 16 Curry contends that the trial court’s determination that he

and Little were not remarried at common law is erroneous in two

respects. First, he contends that reversal is required because the

trial court failed to apply the more lenient standard of proof

applicable to common law remarriage, as set forth in In re Estate of

Peterson,

,

(1961). Second, he contends

that the trial court’s finding was erroneous because the elements of

6 common law remarriage were conclusively established at the

hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with both

contentions.

1. Standard of Review

¶ 17 Because this case was tried to the court, our review of the trial

court’s findings of fact is highly deferential. “We defer to the court’s

credibility determinations and will disturb its findings of fact only if

they are clearly erroneous and not supported by the record.” Lawry

v. Palm,

(Colo. App. 2008). “When the evidence

is conflicting, a reviewing court may not substitute its conclusions

for those of the trial court merely because there may be credible

evidence supporting a different result.” Citywide Banks v. Armijo,

(Colo. App. 2011) (quoting Lawry,

). But we review de novo the trial court’s application of the

governing legal standards. Lawry,

.

2. Legal Principles

¶ 18 In Colorado, “[a] common law marriage is established by the

mutual consent or agreement of the parties to be husband and wife,

followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital

relationship.” People v. Lucero,

(Colo. 1987); see

7 also Klipfel’s Estate v. Klipfel,

,

, 28 (1907)

(recognizing common law marriage as valid and binding). Mutual

consent need not be reduced to writing or expressed through words,

Smith v. People,

,

, 960 (1918), but the

parties’ conduct must evidence their mutual understanding that

they are husband and wife, see Lucero,

.

¶ 19 When direct evidence of an agreement between the parties to

be common law married or remarried is unavailable, the two factors

that most clearly demonstrate an intent to be married are

(1) cohabitation, and (2) a general reputation in the community that

the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife.

.

Cohabitation in this context means “holding forth to the world by

the manner of daily life, by conduct, demeanor, and habits, that the

man and woman have agreed to take each other in marriage and to

stand in the mutual relation of husband and wife.” Smith,

, 170 P. at 960.

¶ 20 In determining whether the parties intended to be married,

“the conduct of the parties provides the truly reliable evidence of the

nature of their understanding or agreement.” Lucero,

. Relevant conduct “includes maintenance of joint banking and

8 credit accounts; purchase and joint ownership of property; the use

of the man’s surname by the woman; . . . and the filing of joint tax

returns.”

. However, “any form of evidence that openly

manifests the intention of the parties that their relationship is that

of husband and wife will provide the requisite proof from which the

existence of their mutual understanding can be inferred.”

¶ 21 Regarding common law remarriage specifically, our supreme

court has held that the standard of proof is less “exacting and

scrupulous” than for common law marriage. See Peterson,

,

; see also Ward v. Terriere,

,

(1963) (Peterson “holds that the

evidence in such cases may be less than the positive and convincing

proof necessary to establish a common law marriage.”).

3. Analysis

a. Curry Has Not Shown that the Trial Court Applied an Incorrect Standard of Proof

¶ 22 Curry contends that the trial court applied an incorrect

standard of proof in finding that he and Little were not remarried at

common law.

9 ¶ 23 First, he contends that the trial court’s failure to expressly

refer to Peterson in its written order shows that the trial court failed

to apply the correct standard. We are not persuaded.

¶ 24 It is true that, in its written order, the trial court did not

explicitly state the applicable standard of proof it applied. But

where a trial court does not specify the standard of proof, we

presume that it applied the correct standard. See People in Interest

of R.W.,

(Colo. App. 1999) (absent contrary

indication in the record, the trial court is assumed to have applied

the correct standard of proof); Auslaender v. MacMillan,

(Colo. App. 1984) (trial court is presumed to have applied

correct standard of proof in the absence of any contrary statement).

It is Curry’s burden to overcome this presumption. Auslaender,

.

¶ 25 Curry does not argue, nor does the record reflect, that the trial

court expressly applied an incorrect legal standard in any part of its

judgment. Indeed, the trial court articulated the correct elements

for evaluating whether a common law marriage had been proven.

Instead, Curry argues that the error is reflected in the trial court’s

failure to cite Peterson and its ultimate finding of no common law

10 remarriage. But the trial court’s order finding no common law

remarriage was well reasoned and thorough, containing extensive

findings of fact that are amply supported by the record. And based

on those findings — which include weighing the evidence and

assessing the credibility of witnesses — the trial court concluded

that “[t]he most reliable evidence shows that Ms. Little considered

herself divorced and Mr. Curry her ex-husband.” We simply cannot

discern a basis in the record for concluding that the trial court

applied an incorrect standard of proof. Cf. In re Marriage of Farr,

(Colo. App. 2010) (the trial court’s finding that

the wife’s testimony was more credible than the husband’s

indicated that it applied a preponderance of the evidence standard).

Accordingly, we reject Curry’s contention that the trial court applied

an incorrect legal standard.

¶ 26 Second, Curry contends that the trial court’s failure to

expressly recognize the distinction between common law marriage

and remarriage requires reversal. We are not persuaded by this

contention either. In Ward, our supreme court rejected an identical

contention of error under strikingly similar circumstances. Ward

involved an appeal from a judgment of no common law remarriage.

11

,

. In Ward, the appellant

contended that the trial court made its findings before the supreme

court’s decision in Peterson and, therefore, erroneously applied the

law to the question of common law remarriage.

,

. Curry’s argument here is nearly identical. But the supreme

court in Ward rejected this contention and affirmed, explaining that

[t]he Peterson case does not and was not intended to strip a trial court of its fact-finding function. At most it merely set a standard with which a trial court shall weigh the evidence in cases involving common law remarriage and holds that the evidence in such cases may be less than the positive and convincing proof necessary to establish a common law marriage.

,

. As discussed in the next part of

this opinion, we discern no grounds for reversal here that were not

considered and rejected in Ward.

b. Common Law Remarriage Was Not Established

¶ 27 Curry next argues that the trial court erred because the

evidence introduced at the hearing established the existence of a

common law remarriage under the Peterson standard. We are not

persuaded.

12 ¶ 28 As a threshold matter, we reject Curry’s initial argument that

Peterson itself supports reversal because its facts are “almost

identical.” The court in Peterson mentions only a single fact about

the parties’ relationship — that their divorce was preceded by

twenty years of common law marriage.

,

. No other details about their relationship are given by the

supreme court, which instead noted that “[i]t is not necessary to

relate the evidence in detail.”

,

. So, the

alleged factual similarities between Peterson and this case cannot

and do not dictate the outcome here.

¶ 29 As alluded to above, however, the supreme court’s decision in

Ward is instructive. In Ward, Martha French appealed a judgment

finding that she and her former husband, Will Feagins, were not

remarried at common law when he died.

,

. French contended, as Curry does on appeal, that it

was error for the trial court to find that she was not remarried at

common law under the more lenient standard of proof set forth in

Peterson.

,

. But the supreme court

affirmed.

,

. Notwithstanding “[e]vidence

of cohabitation and some evidence that some of their acquaintances

13 considered them husband and wife,” the supreme court concluded

that the trial court’s finding was supported by French’s “use of the

name Martha French in all transactions and on records pertaining

to her pension checks” and by her sworn testimony in an unrelated

trial that she and Feagins were not husband and wife.

,

.

¶ 30 Curry neither discusses nor attempts to distinguish Ward.

But facts similar to those relied upon by the supreme court in Ward

are present here. The trial court found, with record support, that in

the years between their 2010 divorce and Little’s death in 2015,

Curry and Little identified their relationship as that of business

partners on loan applications, and they filed individual income tax

returns. The trial court also found, with record support, that Little

identified herself as divorced in an application for public benefits,

identified Curry as her ex-husband in a homeowner’s insurance

application, and identified Curry as her “ex-husband” in a recorded

exchange with an insurance company and in a report to insurance

company investigators.

¶ 31 Where one party consistently used her maiden name in legal

documents and transactions, courts have affirmed a finding of no

14 common law remarriage on that basis. See Ward,

-

31,

; Matter of Estate of Wires,

(Colo. App. 1988) (finding that a party filed individual

income tax returns and used her maiden name on “all important

documents” supported conclusion of no common law marriage); see

also In re Frawley,

(D. Colo. 1990) (finding of no

common law remarriage not erroneous even under relaxed Peterson

standard because, among other things, parties filed individual

income tax returns). Curry does not dispute the trial court’s

findings showing that Little consistently represented herself as

unmarried in financial transactions and legal documents.

¶ 32 At the hearing, Little’s brother also testified that he kept in

regular contact with his sister, but she never indicated that she was

remarried. The trial court found the brother to be a credible

witness.

¶ 33 Curry does not identify any case in which a court considered

similar evidence but found a common law marriage. He contends,

however, that the requisite elements were established by the

testimony of three witnesses at the hearing — two employees of

their business and a friend of Little’s. These witnesses testified that

15 he and Little held themselves out as husband and wife after their

2010 divorce. While this testimony is certainly relevant, it is

insufficient to warrant reversal given the substantial evidence to the

contrary, which the trial court credited in reaching its decision. We

defer to the trial court’s determinations on issues of fact and

credibility. See Lucero,

.

¶ 34 We next turn to Curry’s contention that the trial court

erroneously determined that he lacked standing to seek reformation

of Little’s will.

B. The Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Curry’s Reformation Claim

¶ 35 As noted above, Curry asserted an alternative basis for his

claim that the court should find he is a beneficiary of Little’s will —

reformation pursuant to section 15-11-806. Relying on In re Estate

of Johnson,

, however, the trial court concluded that

Curry lacked standing to assert such a claim. Curry contends that

dismissal of this claim for lack of standing was error. Curry makes

two arguments in this regard: either Johnson is distinguishable or,

in the alternative, it was wrongly decided and we should not follow

it. Although we do not think that Johnson is distinguishable, we

16 are unpersuaded by its analysis of the standing issue and,

therefore, decline to follow it. Instead, we conclude that Curry had

standing to seek reformation, and, therefore, we reverse and

remand for additional findings on Curry’s reformation claim.

1. Legal Principles

¶ 36 We review whether a party has standing de novo. Jones v.

Samora,

. We also review questions of

statutory interpretation de novo. UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark

Towers Ass’n,

.

a. Standing

¶ 37 In Colorado, “parties to lawsuits benefit from a relatively broad

definition of standing,” Ainscough v. Owens,

(Colo.

2004), and the standing test has “traditionally been relatively easy

to satisfy,”

.

¶ 38 In a probate proceeding, a party must be an “interested

person” to have standing. See Estate of Milstein v. Ayers,

(Colo. App. 1998); see also § 15-12-705(1)(k), C.R.S. 2018

(“[A] court will not routinely review or adjudicate matters unless it is

specifically requested to do so by a beneficiary, creditor, or other

interested person . . . .”). An interested person

17 includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person, which may be affected by the proceeding. . . . The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and shall be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding.

§ 15-10-201(27), C.R.S. 2018 (emphasis added). As is evident from

the last sentence of the definition, determining who qualifies as an

interested person in a probate proceeding is highly context

dependent. Id. And an interested person generally includes a

potential devisee under a will. In re Estate of Evarts,

(Colo. App. 2007).

b. Revocation and Reformation

¶ 39 As discussed above, section 15-11-804(2) provides that the

dissolution of a marriage revokes any revocable disposition of

property by the divorced individual to the former spouse, unless

revocation contravenes “the express terms of a governing

instrument, a court order, or a contract relating to the division of

the marital estate made between the divorced individuals.” Section

15-11-804(2) “represents a legislative determination that the failure

18 of an insured [or a testator] to revoke the designation of a spouse as

a beneficiary after dissolution of the marriage more likely than not

represents inattention.” DeWitt,

. The statutory

revocation of spousal transfers upon dissolution of marriage thus

“attempts to give effect to the presumptive intent of the decedent.”

¶ 40 More than a decade after the adoption of section 15-11-804,

the Colorado General Assembly enacted section 15-11-806, which

allows a court to

reform the terms of a governing instrument, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the transferor’s intention if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that the transferor’s intent and the terms of the governing instrument were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement.

By authorizing reformation of an unambiguous will, section

15-11-806 “provides a means by which disappointed beneficiaries

can litigate what they perceive to be the testator’s true intent.”

Baker v. Wood, Ris & Hames, Prof’l Corp.,

.

19 2. Analysis

¶ 41 With these concepts in mind, we turn to the questions (1)

whether Curry has standing to assert a reformation claim, and (2) if

so, whether remand is required.

a. Curry Has Standing To Pursue a Reformation Claim

¶ 42 The trial court relied on Johnson to find that Curry lacked

standing to seek reformation. Given that Johnson is the only case

to address standing under section 15-11-806, we will turn to it as

our starting point as well. In Johnson, the petitioner, Laurel

Christensen, sought reformation of her deceased ex-husband’s life

insurance policy to recognize her as the beneficiary. Johnson, ¶ 6.

Christensen claimed that her ex-husband intended for her to

remain as the beneficiary, notwithstanding their divorce. Id. at

¶ 20. The trial court dismissed Christensen’s reformation claim

pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). Id. at ¶ 6 n.1. On appeal, a division

of this court affirmed the dismissal. Id. at ¶ 1. The division

concluded that, “by operation of section 15-11-804(2), Christensen

was removed as beneficiary to Johnson’s life insurance policy . . .

upon her divorce.” Id. at ¶ 22. With this conclusion, we agree. But

the division in Johnson then held that, because Christensen’s

20 divorce from Johnson removed her as a beneficiary of his insurance

policy, she “lacked standing to bring a reformation claim under

section 15-11-806.” Id. It is here that we part ways with the

division in Johnson.

¶ 43 The trial court was bound by Johnson. See, e.g., Scott v.

People,

. But, unlike the trial court, we are not

bound by another division’s holding. People v. Zubiate,

, ¶ 48, aff’d,

. And we are not persuaded by the

standing analysis in Johnson. We read Johnson to hold that an

ex-spouse whose claim is revoked pursuant to section 15-11-804

lacks standing to assert a reformation claim pursuant to section

15-11-806. The implied premise of this holding appears to be that

a petitioner seeking to inherit under his or her former spouse’s will

has only one remedy: section 15-11-804(5), which provides that

remarriage or nullification of the divorce revives any provisions in a

will that were revoked upon divorce. But we do not read section

15-11-804(2) as foreclosing a former spouse from bringing a

reformation claim under section 15-11-806. And if we were to

follow Johnson, any reformation claim brought by a former spouse,

21 even if meritorious, would fail for lack of standing. But nothing in

either statute supports this result.

¶ 44 Instead, we view the revocation and reformation statutes as

serving distinct but complementary purposes. On the one hand,

the revocation statute — section 15-11-804(2) — “attempts to give

effect to the presumptive intent of the decedent” by revoking any

spousal transfers upon dissolution of the marriage. See DeWitt,

. Revocation is thus intended to conform the will to the

testator’s presumed intent. On the other hand, the reformation

statute, section 15-11-806, is intended to give effect to the testator’s

actual intent. See Baker, ¶ 36 (Section 15-11-806 “provides a

means by which disappointed beneficiaries can litigate what they

perceive to be the testator’s true intent.”). Yet by holding that a

divorce eliminates standing to seek reformation of a former spouse’s

will, Johnson would require that we uphold the testator’s presumed

intent despite clear and convincing evidence of the testator’s actual

intent. This incongruous result further supports our conclusion

that the General Assembly did not intend for section 15-11-804(5)

to be the exclusive remedy available to a petitioner in Curry’s shoes.

22 ¶ 45 The revocation statute also serves a “gap-filling” function that

complements, not supersedes, the reformation statute. As

explained by the Restatement (Second) of Property § 12.1 cmt. 9

(Am. Law Inst. 1995), “[e]very state has numerous statutory rules of

construction that purport to govern when the will is silent.” Section

15-11-804(2), which does not operate when contrary to the terms of

the will itself, is such a “gap-filling” rule. See id. (“Except as

provided by the express terms of a governing instrument . . . .”).

But the operation of such a “gap-filling” rule does not foreclose a

former spouse from seeking reformation, as Johnson held. To the

contrary, because “reformation puts [the testator’s] language back

in the will, there is no gap for the gap-filling statutes to fill.”

Restatement (Second) of Prop. § 12.1 cmt. 9 (“[S]tatutory gap-filling

rules do not take precedence over reformation in a well-proven case

of mistake.”).

¶ 46 Moreover, even if we recognize that a former spouse has

standing to seek reformation under section 15-11-806, he or she

must still prove the testator’s intent by “clear and convincing”

evidence. This heightened standard of proof “deters a potential

plaintiff from bringing a reformation suit on the basis of

23 insubstantial evidence.” Restatement (Second) of Prop. § 12.1 cmt.

e.

¶ 47 In short, we conclude that nothing in section 15-11-804,

section 15-11-806, or the overall statutory scheme indicates that

the General Assembly intended to exclude a former spouse from

pursuing reformation pursuant to section 15-11-806 or that it

intended section 15-11-804(5) to be an ex-spouse’s sole and

exclusive remedy for avoiding a statutory revocation precipitated by

a divorce. Accordingly, we conclude that Curry has standing to

pursue his reformation claim pursuant to section 15-11-806.

C. Remand Is Required

¶ 48 The Interested Parties also contend that, even if Curry had

standing to seek reformation, we should affirm on the alternative

ground that Curry has failed to state a claim for reformation. We

are not persuaded.

¶ 49 The record does not support any conclusive characterization of

Curry’s reformation claim. The Interested Parties are correct that

section 15-11-806 is unavailable to reform a will based on a

testator’s post-execution change of mind, see Fischbach v.

Holzberlein,

(Colo. App. 2009), or to correct a

24 testator’s failure to prepare and execute a new document, see

Restatement (Second) of Prop. § 12.1 cmt. h. Even so, the complete

evidence supporting Curry’s reformation claim was not heard at the

hearing.

¶ 50 The trial court found that Curry lacked standing and, on that

basis, excluded evidence he sought to introduce in support of his

reformation claim. The trial court also struck the portions of his

closing argument relating to reformation. Nor did the Interested

Parties ever seek dismissal of Curry’s section 15-11-806 claim

pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). As a result, although we express no

opinion on the merits of Curry’s reformation claim, we conclude

that the record is insufficient to support a determination as to

whether Curry has stated or will be able to prove a cognizable

reformation claim under section 15-11-806. Therefore, remand is

both appropriate and necessary.

III. Conclusion

¶ 51 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court’s

order determining that Little and Curry were not common law

remarried, but we reverse the dismissal of Curry’s reformation claim

25 under section 15-11-806 and remand for further proceedings and

presentation of additional evidence on the reformation claim.

JUDGE ROMÁN and JUDGE DUNN concur.

26