> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://blog.denverdivorce.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Maintenance After SB25-116: Colorado's No-Fault Rule Gets an Asterisk - URL: https://blog.denverdivorce.com/colorado-maintenance-sb25-116-abuse-factor/ - Published: 2026-09-07T14:00:45.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-14T23:20:37.000Z - Description: A 2025 amendment lets Colorado courts weigh domestic violence, coercive control, and economic abuse when setting maintenance — beside a statute that still says "without regard to marital misconduct." - Author: Aaron Herzberg - Tags: Support, New Law For fifty years, Colorado maintenance has rested on a clean principle: it is an economic remedy, awarded — in the statute's words — "without regard to marital misconduct." An affair does not raise the number. Ordinary marital failure does not lower it. On August 6, 2025, that principle acquired an asterisk. Senate Bill 25-116 added a new factor to C.R.S. § 14-10-114: courts now consider "whether a spouse has engaged in domestic violence, coercive control, economic abuse, litigation abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, or unlawful sexual behavior against the other spouse" when setting the amount and term of maintenance. ## What actually changed Three things, concretely. **A new maintenance factor.** The abuse factor is inserted as § 14-10-114(3)(c)(XII.5) — one of now thirteen enumerated considerations, plus the catch-all. It is phrased neutrally: "a spouse," not the payor or the recipient. The legislature's declared target was a specific inequity — a financially secure abuse victim being ordered to pay maintenance to their abuser. **New definitions.** The bill adds definitions to the Dissolution of Marriage Act, including "economic abuse" — behavior that restrains, sabotages, or unreasonably controls a person's ability to acquire, use, or maintain economic resources: restricting access to money or financial information, unauthorized use of credit, causing financial dependency, exploiting powers of attorney. **A longer disclosure window.** The obligation to disclose prior protection orders when filing expands from two years to five. ![Two commands in one statute: the unchanged no-fault rule, and the new abuse factor beside it.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/9c/7f/9c7f0f22-0ab1-4be3-88a9-68ce015e9524/content/images/2026/08/ig-sb25116.png) Two commands in one statute: the unchanged no-fault rule, and the new abuse factor beside it. ## What did not change The legislature left § 14-10-114(2) — "without regard to marital misconduct" — fully intact. The two provisions now coexist, and reconciling them is the work of the next several years of cases. The strongest reading distinguishes categories: ordinary marital misconduct — infidelity, incompatibility, general discord — remains off the table, while the enumerated abusive conduct, which the legislature treated as qualitatively different, may now be weighed. An affair still should not move a maintenance award. A documented pattern of economic control now can. Nor did the guidelines become presumptive. The advisory formula remains a starting point; the court still decides on the totality of the circumstances with specific findings, and the new factor is one consideration among many — not an automatic adjustment in either direction. ## What it means in a high-asset case Two practical consequences stand out for the clients I represent. **The evidentiary questions are unsettled.** The statute does not say what proof the factor requires — a conviction, a protection order, or testimony at the hearing. The five-year disclosure window creates a documented record where protection orders exist; many situations have none. Expect early cases to be fought over admissibility and weight. **"Economic abuse" reaches financial conduct.** For couples whose life runs through businesses and complex accounts, the new definition makes litigation conduct and financial control part of the maintenance conversation: cutting off account access, canceling cards, restricting information. Conduct that once mattered only as atmosphere now maps onto a statutory factor — which also means allegations must be made, and met, with rigor. The no-fault framework was designed to prevent mini-trials on conduct; whether courts keep that discipline is the open question. ## The practical point If maintenance will be contested in your case — in either direction — the file now matters in a new way. Financial records that show who controlled what, protection-order history within five years, and a sober account of conduct that meets the statutory definitions: these belong in the case preparation from the first meeting, not the eve of the hearing. --- *Related on DenverDivorce.com:* [*Spousal Maintenance*](https://denverdivorce.com/practice-areas/spousal-maintenance.html?ref=blog.denverdivorce.com) *·* [*High-Asset Divorce*](https://denverdivorce.com/practice-areas/high-asset-divorce.html?ref=blog.denverdivorce.com) *·* [*Privacy & Discretion*](https://denverdivorce.com/practice-areas/privacy-discretion.html?ref=blog.denverdivorce.com)