[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-301144-105":53,"doc-detail-301144-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","permanent-orders-permanent-orders","PERMANENT ORDERS - Permanent Orders","","Permanent Orders in a Denver County, Colorado divorce matter address the Court’s written reduction of earlier oral findings and orders. The Court rules on requests for punitive and remedial contempt, dissolution of marriage, and outstanding issues reserved after the decree, including distribution of the marital estate, child support, decision making, and maintenance. The decision emphasizes extensive procedural history, special master recommendations, discovery disputes under Rule 16, and credibility determinations based largely on conflicting testimony and limited documentation.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/permanent-orders-permanent-orders/301144/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/permanent-orders-permanent-orders/301144.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Lucas Vance","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":73},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What issues did the Court reserve after dissolving the marriage?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The Court reserved rulings on distribution of the marital estate, child support, decision making, Mother’s request for maintenance, and her requests for remedial contempt.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why were special masters appointed in this case?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The Court appointed a Special Master after disclosure disputes, and later appointed a second Special Master to address whether the Cushman Trust was marital or fraudulent and to resolve discovery disputes.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"On what basis did the Court make its orders in the permanent orders phase?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The Court relied primarily on conflicting testimony and credibility, citing Father’s lack of documentation and examples suggesting statements about income and assets were not credible.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},301144,1789779511,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":73,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},549768064622,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","| District Court Denver County, Colorado Court Address:\u003Cbr>1437 Bannock Street\u003Cbr>Denver, CO 80202 In re Marriage of:\u003Cbr>Petitioner: AMY ELIZABETH MOORE and\u003Cbr>Respondent: BENJAMIN EMANUEL MOORE | DATE FILED: CASE NUMBE | November 12, 2021 11:21 AMR: 2019DR30398\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>COURT USE ONLY\u003Cbr>Case Number: 19DR30398 | |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  | Courtroom: 331 |  |\n| PERMANENT ORDERS |  |  |  |\n\nTHIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s request for Dissolution of Marriage and Permanent Orders, and her request for punitive and remedial contempt findings against Respondent.  \nThe Petition was filed on May 28, 2019 by Petitioner “Mother.” According to the Affidavit of Service for Summons, Respondent “Father” was served on May 24, 2019. The parties, both represented by counsel, appeared before the Court for a four-day hearing commencing on August 30, 2021 and concluding on September 2, 2021. Both parties filed written closing arguments.1 The Court dissolved the marriage and issued the decree on September 2, 2021, but reserved ruling on permanent orders related to distribution of the marital estate, child support, decision making, Mother’s request for maintenance, and her request for remedial contempt. Both parties filed written closing arguments.  \nThe Court issued oral findings and orders on Mother’s request for punitive sanctions, incorporates the oral findings and orders into this Order, and now reduces those and the remainder of its findings and orders to writing. Being familiar with the history of the case, the testimony and reviewing admitted exhibits, and applying statutory and case law, the Court now makes the following findings and orders:  \nProcedural History  \nThis case presents a unique problem to the Court created by Father’s lack of disclosure and lack of credibility. Mother claims Father has always been “very good at making money”.  \n1 The Court notes that Father/Husband through council stated on several occasions that he had not had enough time to present his case; however, the parties had requested a four-day hearing and the Court granted it. For presentation of evidence relating to permanent orders both sides were given equal time and Father was given an additional half an hour. Furthermore, the closing argument provided by Mother was 61 pages in length. Father's closing argument was less than half of Mother’s.  \nShe testified that Father and his cousin, Drue Moore, started Winthrop Intelligence as well as several other businesses. Mother believes the value of the marital estate is upwards of $39 million. Father claims that the marital estate is far less valuable, that he is no longer in control of Winthrop Intelligence, and that he earns approximately $120,000 a year, or $10,000 a month.  \nFrom the inception of this case, Mother has argued that Father has intentionally failed to disclose numerous documents required by Rule 16.2. After multiple status conferences where Father would agree to comply with disclosures or sign releases, the Court appointed a Special Master. However, the initial Special Master had to be relieved of his assignment because Father refused to sign the standard contract. The Court then appointed a second Special Master, retired Chief Justice Nancy Rice. Justice Rice was charged with determining whether a trust, the Cushman Trust, should be considered marital property and/or whether it was a fraudulent trust and whether she would recommend that the Court impose sanctions on Father on a few of the contempt citations. Justice Rice was also charged with resolving discovery disputes between the parties.  \nThe Special Master issued findings and recommendations after hearing testimony. Father objected to all the findings and conclusions made by the Special Master and asked this Court to review the Special Master’s findings and recommendations de novo. The Court granted his request pursuant to C.R.C.P 53(f)(3)&(4), and so took testimony and heard argument on all the findings made by the S","cbCaiebC0lH2oBv8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiebC0lH2oBv8","pdf",695142,27,"English","# Procedural History\n## Special Master appointments and discovery disputes\n# Punitive and Remedial Contempt\n# Credibility Determination","[{\"question\":\"What issues did the Court reserve after dissolving the marriage?\",\"answer\":\"The Court reserved rulings on distribution of the marital estate, child support, decision making, Mother’s request for maintenance, and her requests for remedial contempt.\"},{\"question\":\"Why were special masters appointed in this case?\",\"answer\":\"The Court appointed a Special Master after disclosure disputes, and later appointed a second Special Master to address whether the Cushman Trust was marital or fraudulent and to resolve discovery disputes.\"},{\"question\":\"On what basis did the Court make its orders in the permanent orders phase?\",\"answer\":\"The Court relied primarily on conflicting testimony and credibility, citing Father’s lack of documentation and examples suggesting statements about income and assets were not credible.\"}]","PERMANENT ORDERS - Permanent Orders | PDF",9]