Colorado § 14-2-202 - Married person may sue and be sued.

§ 14-2-202. Married person may sue and be sued.

A person, while married, may sue and be sued, in all matters having relation to his or her property, person, or reputation, in the same manner as if he or she were unmarried.

Source: R.S. p. 455, § 3. G.L. § 1749. G.S. § 2268. R.S. 08: § 4182. C.L. § 5577. CSA: C. 108, § 2. CRS 53: § 90-2-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 90-2-2. L. 2018: Entire part amended, (SB 18-090), ch. 72, p. 638, § 2, effective August 8.

Cross references: For the rule of civil procedure authorizing married women to sue as if sole, see C.R.C.P. 17(b).

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Damages Recoverable for Injuries to A Spouse in Colorado", see 28 Dicta 291 (1951).

Until 1874 married women were under disability and could not sue or be sued except in matters relating to their separate estates. Schuler v. Henry, 42 Colo. 367, 94 P. 360, (1908).

The statute up to that time also provided that when judgment was rendered against the husband and wife for the tort of the wife, execution should first be levied on the lands of the wife, if she had any. Schuler v. Henry, 42 Colo. 367, 94 P. 360 (1908).

This section contains the provision which emancipates married women from many of the disabilities imposed by the common law, and the decisions of the courts lay emphasis on the wife's independence of her husband in that she is guaranteed a remedy against ill persons, including her husband, for every personal injury she may sustain. Giggey v. Gallagher Transp. Co., 101 Colo. 258, 72 P.2d 1100 (1937).

There is no exception as to the person the wife may sue. Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19, 24, 46 P.2d 740 (1935).

In view of the broad, liberal provisions of the constitution and statutes of this state, and the liberal construction thereof adopted by the courts of this state, the supreme court of Colorado was unwilling to follow the decisions of courts that held that a wife had no right to sue her husband for a personal injury caused by him. Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19, 46 P.2d 740 (1935).

This section admits a married woman to the courts upon the same terms as if she were sole, and for this reason, if for no other, she cannot claim indulgence on the ground of coverture. Mills v. Angela, 1 Colo. 334 (1871).

The married woman is not like an infant who is incapable of acting for himself, and is compelled to rely upon a guardian ad litem, who may be careless or unfaithful. Mills v. Angela, 1 Colo. 334 (1871).

The law clothes her with power to manage her own affairs, and she ought to accept the responsibility which attends upon free agency. Mills v. Angela, 1 Colo. 334 (1871).

She is under no disability in respect to the time or manner of putting in her defense to an action brought against her. Mills v. Angela, 1 Colo. 334 (1871).

To enable a wife to join with her husband in an action upon an undertaking, the engagement must have been with her distinctly and unquestionably. Allen v. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 287 (1871).

The wife may maintain an action for damages against one who wrongfully induces and procures her husband to abandon her or send her away. Williams v. Williams, 20 Colo. 51, 37 P. 614 (1894).

A husband has a right to maintain an action against his wife to recover property belonging to him. Hedlund v. Hedlund, 87 Colo. 607, 290 P. 285 (1930).

So diverse are the rights and interests, the duties, obligations, and disabilities of husband and wife now, that it would be most unreasonable to hold him still liable for the torts committed by her without his presence and without his consent or approbation. Schuler v. Henry, 42 Colo. 367, 94 P. 360 (1908).

The Uniform Marriage Act neither expressly nor impliedly creates a private cause of action. Weiszmann v. Kirkland and Ellis, 732 F. Supp. 1540 (D. Colo. 1990).