Colorado’s second-highest court last month overturned a set of decisions finding a man in contempt and subjecting him to potential jail time, with appellate judges concluding an Arapahoe County magistrate reached unclear, unsupported or confused conclusions about the man’s alleged failure to follow the separation agreement with his ex-wife.

Todd Russell Lloyd’s marriage ended in 2011 and the separation agreement contained obligations around Lloyd’s military compensation. Specifically, he was to make “regular reports” about his retirement pay and give his ex-wife a portion of his veterans’ disability benefits under certain conditions.

Lloyd’s ex-wife sought to hold him in contempt for allegedly failing to comply. After multiple hearings, Magistrate James Quinn found Lloyd in contempt. Quinn ordered Lloyd to pay $1,988, with subsequent attorney fees owed to his ex-wife totaling more than $10,000. Quinn gave Lloyd 180 days to comply. Otherwise, he would be jailed.

District Court Judge Cajardo Lindsey upheld Quinn’s conclusions on appeal, agreeing Lloyd did not make regular reports of his military and retirement pay to his ex-wife and did not honor the “clear and ambiguous” calculation of disability payments in the separation agreement.

However, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals found multiple problems with Quinn’s underlying decision. Specifically, they did not understand it.

Although Quinn believed Lloyd was failing to report his income to his ex-wife, “we cannot tell what kind of reports (annual or monthly statements) he was supposed to receive and provide wife. And the magistrate did not identify which reports were missing,” wrote Judge David H. Yun in the May 30 opinion. “Additionally, the magistrate did not explain how husband could purge the contempt by providing reports of his disability benefits when the separation agreement requires only that he provide her regular reports of his military retired pay.”

As for the disability benefits, Quinn had declined to analyze Lloyd’s argument that federal law actually precluded those payments from going to his ex-wife. But the appellate panel also sided with Lloyd, finding the requirement in the separation agreement was invalid for the reason Lloyd cited.

Finally, the panel could not decipher Quinn’s finding that Lloyd owed his ex-wife $1,988 in military pay under the requirement he transfer 25% of that income to her. Although Quinn agreed Lloyd was obligated to provide 25% after taxes, Quinn’s dollar figure of money allegedly owed reflected the larger pre-tax amount.

“In other words, the magistrate found that the separation agreement was ‘clear and unambiguous,’ but it then gave contradictory interpretations of the ‘clear and unambiguous’ language,” Yun wrote. “As a result, we can’t discern what the magistrate found husband was required to pay each month.”

The Court of Appeals returned the case to the trial court to correct the errors and hold further proceedings.

“While the Court of Appeals corrected a massive injustice, Mr. Lloyd will not get back the years and attorney’s fees and costs it took to acquire the right outcome,” said Jason A. Márquez, an attorney for Lloyd.

The case is In the Marriage of Lloyd.