Start with Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 14-10-106 to 14-10-122. In Colorado, At least one party must be domiciled in Colorado for more than 91 days before the court finds jurisdiction to enter a decree. Grounds: No-fault: the marriage is irretrievably broken. Property: equitable distribution. Colorado is an equitable-distribution state. Marital property is divided fairly based on statutory factors, not necessarily equally; separate property generally remains with the owning spouse if traceable. That is the question this guide answers for how to file for divorce. Waiting period: A decree of dissolution generally cannot be entered until at least 91 days after service or after the co-petition is filed (§ 14-10-106). File in District court in the county where either party resides.
Residency and where to file
At least one party must be domiciled in Colorado for more than 91 days before the court finds jurisdiction to enter a decree. File in the District court in the county where either party resides. Wrong venue or missing residency can delay service, temporary orders, and the final decree — confirm the county clerk’s checklist before you pay the filing fee.
Grounds for divorce in Colorado
No-fault: the marriage is irretrievably broken.
Even in no-fault states, fault allegations can still affect temporary support, attorney’s fees, or credibility disputes. Read the live statute text on LawDiver and pair it with the LawDiver search rail scoped to Colorado.
How the Colorado rule applies
Apply the Colorado authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
A spouse wants to file for divorce in Colorado and is unsure about residency, grounds, and property.
- Confirm residency: At least one party must be domiciled in Colorado for more than 91 days before the court finds jurisdiction to enter a decree.
- Plead grounds Colorado recognizes: No-fault: the marriage is irretrievably broken.
- Expect property division under equitable distribution: Colorado is an equitable-distribution state. Marital property is divided fairly based on statutory factors, not necessarily equally; separate property generally remains with the owning spouse if traceable.
- Plan the timeline: A decree of dissolution generally cannot be entered until at least 91 days after service or after the co-petition is filed (§ 14-10-106). Parties file a petition or co-petition for dissolution and exchange sworn financial statements. Mandatory initial status conferences and mediation are common. Temporary orders cover parenting and support. Final orders allocate marital property, maintenance, and parental responsibilities after the 91-day waiting period.
Colorado Judicial Branch JDF forms support uncontested cases; complex estates and contested parenting still need counsel.
Property division: equitable distribution
Colorado is an equitable-distribution state. Marital property is divided fairly based on statutory factors, not necessarily equally; separate property generally remains with the owning spouse if traceable.
Retirement accounts, closely held businesses, and marital homes often need valuations and Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Do not assume an informal split of bank accounts finishes the case.
Waiting periods and timelines
A decree of dissolution generally cannot be entered until at least 91 days after service or after the co-petition is filed (§ 14-10-106).
The typical Colorado divorce process
Parties file a petition or co-petition for dissolution and exchange sworn financial statements. Mandatory initial status conferences and mediation are common. Temporary orders cover parenting and support. Final orders allocate marital property, maintenance, and parental responsibilities after the 91-day waiting period.
Self-help and when to hire counsel
Colorado Judicial Branch JDF forms support uncontested cases; complex estates and contested parenting still need counsel.
Related Colorado guides
- Child custody and parenting time in Colorado
- Security deposit return in Colorado
- DUI penalties in Colorado
Case law: divorce in Colorado
In Re the MARRIAGE OF John S. HUNT, Petitioner, and Dianna L. Hunt, Respondent. in Re the MARRIAGE OF Mark Stephen
…he respondent, Dianna Hunt (Wife), were married in 1977 and divorced fourteen years later in 1991. During their marriage, Husband earned ten years of creditable service, of the required twenty years, towards retirement from the United States Air Force. At the time of their divorce, Husband had achieved the rank of Captain. In October 1991, the trial court entered permanent orde…
In Re the MARRIAGE OF John S. HUNT, Petitioner, and Dianna L. Hunt, Respondent. in Re the MARRIAGE OF Mark Stephen is worth reading on Colorado divorce because the court put the point in its own words: "Dianna Hunt (Wife), were married in 1977 and divorced fourteen years later in 1991. During their marriage, Husband earned ten years of creditable service, of the required twenty years, towards retirement from the United States Air Force." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ruth MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. Ervin MICHAELSON, Respondent
Ruth MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. Ervin MICHAELSON, Respondent, 1994 Colo. LEXIS 819 (1994)
…is the preclusive effect of the property division in a 1965 divorce action on claims brought in the case now before us. The petitioner, Ruth Michaelson, brings this action against her former husband, Ervin Michaelson, seeking damages for his alleged mismanagement of a corporation in which the two were the sole stockholders.1 We find that the present action is not barred by res…
Practitioners open Ruth MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. Ervin MICHAELSON, Respondent when Colorado divorce turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The petitioner, Ruth Michaelson, brings this action against her former husband, Ervin Michaelson, seeking damages for his alleged mismanagement of a corporation in which the two were the sole stockholders." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In Re the Marriage of Debora MacMillan NEWMAN, Petitioner, v. Richard Wenrick NEWMAN, Respondent; Richard Wenrick
…tablishes that both parties had been previously married and divorced. Because of financial difficulties that had arisen in the previous divorces, especially for the husband, a man of considerable means, the parties agreed to execute an antenuptial agreement fixing their property rights in the event their marriage should fail. The terms of the agreement were suggested by the wif…
In Re the Marriage of Debora MacMillan NEWMAN, Petitioner, v. Richard Wenrick NEWMAN, Respondent; Richard Wenrick is worth reading on Colorado divorce because the court put the point in its own words: "Because of financial difficulties that had arisen in the previous divorces, especially for the husband, a man of considerable means, the parties agreed to execute an antenuptial agreement fixing their property rights in the event their marriage should fail." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re the Marriage of Rebecca Gertrude Franks v. Maurice Rudolph Franks
In Re the Marriage of Rebecca Gertrude Franks v. Maurice Rudolph Franks, 189 Colo. 499 (1975)
…age Act, which abrogated the traditional fault criteria for divorce, and substituted the single ground of “irretrievable” breakdown. In so doing, this state joined an ever-increasing number of others in adopting what have sometimes been referred to as “no-fault” divorce laws. 1 The reasons underlying this change in philosophy are fairly clear. The pre-1971 state of the law has…
Colorado opinions such as In Re the Marriage of Rebecca Gertrude Franks v. Maurice Rudolph Franks are cited where divorce is disputed. The court stated: "Act, which abrogated the traditional fault criteria for divorce, and substituted the single ground of “irretrievable” breakdown. In so doing, this state joined an ever-increasing number of others in adopting what have sometimes been referred to as “no-fault” divorce laws." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ruth MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. Ervin MICHAELSON, Respondent
Ruth MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. Ervin MICHAELSON, Respondent, 1997 Colo. LEXIS 500 (1997)
…owning 2,500 shares of stock. Although the Michaelsons were divorced on November 10,1965, the permanent orders regarding division of marital property were not entered until 1989. 3 The district court valued the property as of 1965, the year of the divorce decree, and divided the property pursuant to the law and circumstances as they existed in 1965. The corporation was not diss…
On divorce, Ruth MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. Ervin MICHAELSON, Respondent speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Although the Michaelsons were divorced on November 10,1965, the permanent orders regarding division of marital property were not entered until 1989." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Marilyn WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George PRENTISS and Comanche Peak View, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability
…t claims or nonrelated contract claims between divorcing or divorced spouses may be brought separately and independently from the dissolution proceeding. Mockelmann v. Mockelmann, 121 P.3d 337 (Colo.App.2005); In re Marriage of Mockelmann, 944 P.2d 670, 671 (Colo.App.1997); cf. In re Marriage of Mockelmann, 121 P.3d 335 (Colo.App.2005). In addition, there is precedent that sugg…
Colorado opinions such as Marilyn WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George PRENTISS and Comanche Peak View, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability are cited where divorce is disputed. The court stated: "Mockelmann v. Mockelmann, 121 P.3d 337 (Colo.App.2005); In re Marriage of Mockelmann, 944 P.2d 670, 671 (Colo.App.1997); cf. In re Marriage of Mockelmann, 121 P.3d 335 (Colo.App.2005)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Key takeaways
- Residency: At least one party must be domiciled in Colorado for more than 91 days before the court finds jurisdiction to enter a decree.
- Grounds: No-fault: the marriage is irretrievably broken.
- Property: equitable distribution — Colorado is an equitable-distribution state.
- Waiting period: A decree of dissolution generally cannot be entered until at least 91 days after service or after the co-petition is filed (§ 14-10-106).
- Filing forum: District court in the county where either party resides.
- Primary authority: Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 14-10-106 to 14-10-122.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to live in Colorado before filing for divorce?
At least one party must be domiciled in Colorado for more than 91 days before the court finds jurisdiction to enter a decree.
Is Colorado a community-property state?
Colorado follows equitable distribution. Colorado is an equitable-distribution state. Marital property is divided fairly based on statutory factors, not necessarily equally; separate property generally remains with the owning spouse if traceable.
Do I need a lawyer to get divorced in Colorado?
Colorado Judicial Branch JDF forms support uncontested cases; complex estates and contested parenting still need counsel.
What happens to child custody in a Colorado divorce?
Custody and parenting time are decided under Colorado’s best-interests framework. See child custody and parenting time in Colorado.
This guide covers Colorado law as of 2026. Statutes and local rules change — verify the live text on LawDiver before filing.