Corry v. Corry — Case 97 DR 1971

First Judicial District — Jefferson County

Magistrate John A. DeVita II
District Judge Christopher Munch
Court of Appeals John D. Dailey, Leonard P. Plank, and Janice B. Davidson
Colorado Surpreme Court
Hearing dates: February 20 and 23, 1998
Matter before the bar: Dissolution of marriage, Charles E. Corry, Petitioner v. Theresa A. Corry nee Rizzo, Respondent

Husband filed for divorce after he found evidence wife was having an affair. Subsequently she charged him with domestic violence, of which he was acquitted.

The couple had substantial financial assets and wife is a broker at Merrill Lynch. She was thus able to directly manipulate the couple's accounts. Despite court orders to do so, wife repeatedly refused to sign financial releases to allow husband to obtain information about their assets.

Despite wife's refusal to sign releases, and knowing that there were undisclosed assets, Judge Christopher Munch put his docket management in front of justice, and proceeded with the dissolution hearing.

The Relevant Law

How Judge Munch Corrupted The Law

CRS 14-10-113: Financial Disclosure during divorce


Rule 26.2: Disclosure deadline


Rule 806: Official evidence supercedes self-serving verbal testimony

Munch refused to enforce his own court order requiring the wife to produce financial records prior to holding dissolution hearing. Further, Munch would not order the clerk of the court to sign financial releases after wife repeatedly refused to sign such releases in the face of repeated court orders to do so.


Munch repeatedly refused to grant a continuation of the hearing to allow husband to obtain wife's financial records.


Munch quashed husband's subpeona for witnesses with knowledge of wife's assets without giving him a chance to respond to the motion to quash.


Munch told the husband that if wife had hidden assets he could conduct discovery after the hearing wherein he divided the known marital assets. Division favored wife who had not disclosed all her assets.


Judge Munch's actions obstructed and delayed justice, denied the husband a fair settlement, and magnified the legal costs of the proceeding by over $100,000.

Court of Appeals — Case 98 CA 1123


Husband appealed Judge Munch's decision that, in effect, granted the wife the right to refuse to obey court orders, refuse to sign financial releases, hide her assets from discovery, and alloted to Judge Munch the power to divide the marital assets when the total of such assets were unknown to him.

In an attempt to cover the enormity of his actions, Judge Munch did grant the husband the right to conduct post-hearing discovery and indicated he would award any of wife's assets found to husband. However, such discovery after the hearing is inifinitely more difficult and expensive than discovery conducted in the normal and accepted manner prior to the hearing. There is also the added expense of a second hearing after such assets are finally disclosed.

However, in the manner we have come to expect of the Colorado Court of Appeals, Judge Munch's rulings were affirmed by Judges John D. Dailey, Plank, and Janice B. Davidson on February 10, 2000.

Husband then filed a petition for a rehearing and that was denied on March 9, 2000.

Colorado Supreme Court — Case 00SC296


Husband then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on April 7, 2000, with the Colorado Supreme Court. That petition was denied on July 24, 2000.

Although the appeal was not published (avalable here) it is clear that precedent has been set for a spouse to ignore court orders to sign financial releases with impunity and refuse to disclose all marital assets prior to the dissolution hearing. Only chaos can result from such sophistic reasoning.

His appeals exhausted husband complied fully with the terms of the permanent orders on September 15, 2000, by conveyance of remaining joint assets to wife.

Post-hearing discovery efforts


Following the failure of his appeal, husband began post-hearing discovery efforts.

Wife continued to refuse to sign financial releases, instead filing numerous motions for protective orders and requests for rehearing on why she should have to sign financial releases. These motions were heard by Judge Brian Boatright, who judiciously denied wife's motions for protective orders and twice ordered her to sign the requisite financial releases needed for post-hearing discovery.

Finally, on June 1, 2001, four years after full and complete financial disclosure had originally been requested as mandated under C.R.S. § 14-10-113, wife signed the releases as she had four times been ordered to do by the court. At any time the court could have ordered the clerk of the court to sign the releases in the face of wife's repeated refusals to do so but the court failed yet again in its duty. The costs to both husband and wife of this mockery of justice was immense.

After protracted discovery battles with wife's employer, husband found that wife had hidden at least $47,745 in stocks, funds, and an annuity that were not disclosed at the permanent orders hearing.

Unfortunately, the case was moved back to Judge Munch and, at one of the last attempts to finally settle the issue in July of 2002, Munch blamed the problems on the husband and wife (see court order ), stating the parties were consuming scarce court and public resources by their continued litigation and claiming husband and wife had nothing better to do with their time and money than sue each other.

As of October 2003 some $36,000 in stocks, funds, and checks remains in limbo because neither party can get a rational or sane decision from Judge Christopher Munch.


Use browser Back button to return to Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado