Colorado § 14-2-203 - Rights in separate business.

§ 14-2-203. Rights in separate business.

A married person may carry on any trade or business and perform any labor or services on his or her sole and separate account, and the earnings of a married person from his or her trade, business, labor, or services is his or her sole and separate property and may be used and invested by him or her in his or her own name. Property acquired by trade, business, and services by the married person and the proceeds may be taken on any execution against the person.

Source: R.S. p. 455, § 6. G.L. § 1752. G.S. § 2271. R.S. 08: § 4183. C.L. § 5578. CSA: C. 108, § 3. CRS 53: § 90-2-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 90-2-3. L. 2018: Entire part amended, (SB 18-090), ch. 72, p. 638, § 2, effective August 8.

ANNOTATION

Modern legal theory and statute have placed women on an equal footing with men regarding their rights to hold and manage property. Thompson v. Thompson, 30 Colo. App. 57, 489 P.2d 1062 (1971).

The wife is still to perform the usual and ordinary household duties. Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Young, 30 Colo. 349, 70 P. 688 (1902).

For such household services, she is not entitled to any monetary compensation from her husband. Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Young, 30 Colo. 349, 70 P. 688 (1902).

In an action by a married woman, living at the time with her husband, for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, she is not entitled to recover damages to compensate her for her inability to perform ordinary household duties. Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Young, 30 Colo. 349, 70 P. 688 (1902).

A contract between the husband and wife, by which the wife reserves to herself the earnings of her labor performed for her husband, in matters apart from the domestic duties of the wife pertaining strictly to the household and the family, may be entered into by the wife as if she were sole, and for this reason such contract cannot be held to be against public policy. Tuttle v. Shutts, 43 Colo. 534, 96 P. 260 (1908).

Contracts between a husband and his wife are not presumptively void. Daniels v. Benedict, 97 F. 367 (8th Cir. 1899).

Since some contracts between parties in fiduciary relations to each other are valid, and some are voidable or void, and some contracts between strangers are valid, and some are void, no definite conclusion can be drawn as to the validity or invalidity of a contract from the fact that the parties to it occupied a fiduciary relation to each other. Daniels v. Benedict, 97 F. 367 (8th Cir. 1899).

A promissory note given by a married woman and her husband, for property purchased by her as a sole trader, is valid in law, and the amount of such note may be recovered against the husband and wife in an action of assumpsit. Barnes v. De France, 2 Colo. 294 (1874).

Since under this section the rights of the wife to manage and control her individual property are well established, the relation of debtor and creditor may exist between husband and wife as fully as if both were sole, and the wife may deal with the husband as with a stranger, and in case of the insolvency of the husband, he may pay the wife to the exclusion of other creditors, but the existence of the individual property and the bona fides of the debt must, as in other cases, be fully established. Knapp v. Day, 4 Colo. App. 21, 34 P. 1008 (1893).

Under this section a husband is deprived of all interest in the labor of his wife rendered to third persons, and a married woman may maintain an action in her own name to recover her earnings. Allen v. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 287 (1871).

It may be contended that the words "on her sole and separate account", in the first clause of this section restrict the woman's right to cases in which she declares her intention to appropriate the proceeds of her labor to her own use. But there is little room for such construction, because it must be presumed that every one who labors for hire is seeking his own personal emolument, for men do not sow that others may reap, and the highest claim to the fruits of labor is vested in him who performs it, and none other need be asserted. Allen v. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 287 (1871).