Is Colorado Revised Statutes Section 14-2-205 Still Good Law?

PregnancyWife's land subject to judgment. When whatever blackamoor against whom badness exists marries and has or acquires lands, sentiment on much badness haw be rendered against her and her economise jointly, to be levied on much lands only.- Section 14-2-205, river Revised Statutes.The enactment above, part of the Married Women's Property Act passed very primeval on in Colorado's story (actually a few eld before its admission to statehood when it was low the regional assembly kinda than the land legislature), relic on the books just as it read when it was enacted in the New 1800s as part of a generalized assemblage of governing that regenerate the ordinary accumulation conception that a mated blackamoor was subsumed as digit mortal with her economise who was vested with every of her property, upon marrying and ceased to hit an of the jural rights of an adult person. Most of the sections of the act had that effect.But, this section, by its cost (despite the fact that the heading for the country doesn't give a clue that this is the case), this country would suggest that if a blackamoor had an unpaid debt from before the marriage, married, and then, for example, acquired a bag which she and her economise co-owned, that both the half of the bag owned by her, and the half of the bag owned by him would be subject to execution for payment of the debt, despite the fact that it was her mend pre-marital debt that he wouldn't otherwise hit whatever personal badness upon, and that the alter (in the housing of a Negro with premarital debts) would not be true. This gives creditors admittance to more assets than they would otherwise hit acquirable to them from which to amass debts of recently mated women.While whatever debts contracted for "necessities" by a mated mortal in a azygos spouse's study haw be the domain of the another spouse, and a relative haw be responsible for the another spouse's automobile happening badness low the "family automobile doctrine," the generalized conception is that a relative is never wrongfully responsible for the another spouse's mend debts and that digit spouse's welfare in land cannot be seized for the another spouse's debts in the absence of a fraudulent transfer.The enactment sure violates the intermediate investigating effort for sexuality distinctions low the 14th Amendment's equal endorsement clause, but ordinarily the cure would be exclusive to feature that wives who co-own actual estate with their husbands hit domain for their husbands' pre-marital debts just as husbands do for their wives low this statute. This is the accepted artefact that statutes that ingest macho module exclusive are interpreted and the alter ought to be true, even though this is a housing where the example intent of the enactment (enacted when the 14th Amendment didn't apply, interestingly) was belike not to do so, because it was enacted in response to previously unequal treatment of the pre-marital debts of husbands and wives.The accumulation in Colorado's case, however, belike cod to indiscriminate copying from the laws of whatever another state, rectified a difficulty that river didn't have. Unlike whatever states in the Eastern United States, river has never had the belief of tenancies by the entireties that prohibited sentiment liens against a azygos relative from attaching to a azygos spouse's welfare in actual concept co-owned by a economise and wife. So, a economise and spouse purchase actual concept as co-owners does not deflower the ability of a wife's pre-marital creditors to amass from her as it would, for example, in Beantown where the tenancies by the entireties doctrines survives.But, there is no obvious constitutional generalisation that would prohibit the accumulation from making every of actual estate together owned by spouses subject to the pre-marital claims of digit of the spouses, and the generalized conception is that statutes are presented gist according to their stark language. In visit to escape the claim of a creditor that this expands their assemblage rights, a debtor economise would hit to debate that the accumulation doesn't rattling mean what it seems to feature on its face, presented the large intent of the Married Women's Property book to exclusive impact mated women the aforementioned artefact that unmarried women are treated in private law. This discussion could be made, and its declination suggests that there are distributed assumptions that creditors don't hit this right, but much an discussion would hardly be a slam dunk. Moreover, most individual consumer debt assemblage defendants (and whatever of the lawyers who represent them) aren't wrongfully worldly sufficiency to make that category of argument.Interestingly, there is not a azygos reportable housing that has ever discussed this enactment in the whole story of Colorado, despite the fact that this would be a conception that would seem to souvenir creditors in debt-collection actions that could goodness that class of creditors thousands of times per year. The directive treatise on debt assemblage accumulation in Colorado, by Stephen W. Siefert, "Colorado Creditors' Remedies - Debtors' Relief," doesn't ever mention the enactment once. Neither does the treatise, "Colorado Family Law and Practice," by Frank L. McGuane, Jr. and Kathleen A. Hogan. While this could exclusive be a duty of the accumulation being unambiguous, the more likely reality is that it is forgotten and not used because it doesn't make logical significance in the environment of the contemporary was that we think most the concept rights of mated people. Most lawyers don't wait it to be there and therefore don't look for it, and don't wait it to work, in the thin cases where they do undergo most it and it does administer by its cost to a case.Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2011)Pregnancy care
hongkong doctors