## Facts

- Timothy Pyfer and Dean LaFleur were a same-sex couple who lived together in Colorado.
- On November 30, 2003, they held a ceremony before family and friends and exchanged vows and rings.
- The relationship ended in 2018, and Pyfer filed a petition in Colorado district court to dissolve the marriage, alleging the parties had entered a Colorado common-law marriage in 2003.
- LaFleur argued that a common-law marriage in 2003 was legally impossible because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at that time.
- In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided *Obergefell v. Hodges*, recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and invalidating state laws barring same-sex couples from marriage.
- The district court concluded that the parties were not barred, as a matter of law, from forming a common-law marriage before *Obergefell*, found that they in fact formed a common-law marriage in 2003, and entered orders dividing property and awarding spousal maintenance.
- LaFleur sought review in the Colorado Supreme Court, challenging recognition of a pre-*Obergefell* same-sex common-law marriage and the resulting dissolution orders.

## Issues

1. May Colorado courts recognize and adjudicate a same-sex common-law marriage allegedly formed in Colorado before *Obergefell v. Hodges* invalidated state restrictions on same-sex marriage?
2. Do the state-law restrictions later deemed unconstitutional in *Obergefell* bar recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision, including a common-law marriage?
3. Did the district court adequately support its property-division and maintenance orders under Colorado’s dissolution statutes after finding a 2003 common-law marriage?

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held that state-law restrictions on same-sex marriage deemed unconstitutional in *Obergefell* “cannot serve as an impediment to the recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision.”
- The Court affirmed the district court’s legal conclusion that the parties were not barred, as a matter of law, from entering a Colorado common-law marriage before *Obergefell*.
- The Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Pyfer and LaFleur in fact entered a common-law marriage in 2003.
- The Court reversed the district court’s division of property and award of spousal maintenance and remanded with instructions to make further findings consistent with sections 14-10-113 (property division) and 14-10-114 (maintenance), C.R.S.

## Legal Principles

- State restrictions on same-sex marriage that were held unconstitutional in *Obergefell v. Hodges* cannot be used to block recognition of a same-sex marriage that otherwise meets legal requirements, even if the relationship predates *Obergefell*.
- Colorado courts may evaluate whether a same-sex couple formed a common-law marriage before formal recognition of same-sex marriage, using the same common-law marriage framework applied to other couples.
- The central common-law marriage inquiry is mutual intent to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, shown through the parties’ conduct and representations, rather than a single formal act.
- In dissolution proceedings, trial courts must make findings and apply the statutory factors governing equitable division of marital property (section 14-10-113) and maintenance (section 14-10-114); financial orders may be reversed where findings are insufficient or the statutory analysis is incomplete.

## Conclusion

*LaFleur v. Pyfer* confirms that Colorado’s former limits on same-sex marriage—later invalidated by *Obergefell*—do not prevent a court from recognizing a same-sex common-law marriage formed earlier if the evidence shows the parties mutually intended to be spouses and acted consistently with that status. While the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the district court’s determination that Pyfer and LaFleur entered a common-law marriage in 2003, it required renewed statutory findings on property division and maintenance, reversing those financial orders and remanding for further proceedings.


LaFleur v. Pyfer, 479 P.3d 869 (2021)