Colorado § 14-2-208 - Married person may contract.

§ 14-2-208. Married person may contract.

A person, while married, may contract debts in his or her own name and upon his or her own credit, and may execute promissory notes, bonds, bills of exchange, and other instruments in writing, and may enter into any contract the same as if he or she were unmarried. In all cases where any suit or other legal proceedings are instituted against the married person and any judgment, decree, or order is rendered or pronounced against the married person, the same may be enforced by execution or other process against the married person as if he or she were unmarried.

Source: L. 1874: p. 185, § 3. G.L. § 1761. G.S. § 2280. R.S. 08: § 4191. C.L. § 5586. CSA: C. 108, § 11. CRS 53: § 90-2-10. C.R.S. 1963: § 90-2-10. L. 2018: Entire part amended, (SB 18-090), ch. 72, p. 638, § 2, effective August 8.

ANNOTATION

At common law a married woman, though living apart from her husband, could not make a binding contract except for necessaries or for the benefit of her separate estate. Ferrand v. Beshoar, 9 Colo. 291, 12 P. 196 (1886).

In equity, before the statutes of 1872 and 1874, the written contract of a married woman, for the benefit of other persons, was not a charge upon her separate estate unless it contained an express provision to that effect. Ferrand v. Beshoar, 9 Colo. 291, 12 P. 196 (1886).

By the act of 1861, to protest the rights of married women, a wife could make contracts respecting her separate business and estate, but beyond these limits her contracts were governed by the common law and were therefore void, and she could not warrant her husband's title to realty, or covenant for his act or default in any respect whatever. Holladay v. Dailey, 1 Colo. 460 (1872).

In an action on contract against a married woman, a plea of coverture, without more, is not sufficient in law as a defense. Rose v. Otis, 18 Colo. 59, 31 P. 493 (1892).

Where the husband was joined as a codefendant with his wife in the district court, he not being a party to the contract sued upon, and no relief having been demanded against him in the complaint, it was held that upon default judgment should have been entered against the wife alone. Wilbur v. Maynard, 6 Colo. 483 (1883).