Whenever, under the terms of any
annuity or policy of life insurance, or under any written agreement supplemental thereto, issued
by any insurance company, domestic or foreign, lawfully doing business in this state, the
proceeds are retained by such company at maturity or otherwise, no person, other than the
insured, entitled to any part of such proceeds or any installment of interest due or to become due
thereon shall be permitted to commute, anticipate, encumber, alienate, or assign the same, or any
part thereof, if such permission is expressly withheld by the terms of such policy or
supplemental agreement; and, if such policy or supplemental agreement so provides, no
payments of interest or of principal shall be in any way subject to such person's debts, contracts,
or engagements nor to any judicial processes to levy upon or attach the same for payment
thereof.
Source: L. 25: p. 310, § 1. CSA: C. 87, § 64. CRS 53: § 72-3-11. C.R.S. 1963: § 72-3-
11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1991–2019 · leading case:
In re May, 478 B.R. 431 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2012).
In re May, 478 B.R. 431 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2012).
· cites it 42× “1 The Debtors have claimed the annuity as exempt under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 10-7-106. The Trustee argues, among other things, that this statute is not an exemption statute and, even if it were construed to be such, it would not allow Mrs.”
Brown v. Hahn-Martinez, 387 B.R. 611 (D. Colo. 2008).
· cites it 20× “In their schedule, Debtors listed a Sun America Polaris 2A Annuity as an asset and claimed the asset exempt under *612 Colo.Rev.Stat. § 10-7-106. Trustee-Appel-lee Lynn Hahn-Martinez filed a timely objection to the claim of exemption.”
In Re Ludwig, 345 B.R. 310 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The original Schedule C claimed an exemption for the Allianz Annuity pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 10-7-106. Debtor eventually amended his Schedules B and C to reflect the purchase of the Allianz Annuity, and revised Schedule C to claim an exemption pursuant to Colo.”
In Re Raymond, 132 B.R. 53 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1991).
· cites it 6× “Simply put, C.R.S. § 10-7-106 is *56 not an exemption statute.”
In Re Besser, 356 B.R. 531 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2006).
· cites it 5× “3 The Debtor asserts that the statutory basis for her claimed exemption for these annuity contracts is found in Colorado’s insurance statutes at C.R.S. § 10-7-106, which states: Exclusive right of insured in proceeds.”
In re Soori-Arachi, 600 B.R. 153 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2019).
· cites it 3× “at 435 (applying Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-7-106 ); Olson , 424 B.”
Aden v. Gugino, 484 B.R. 379 (D. Idaho 2012).
“no payments of interest or of principal shall be in any way subject to such persons debts,_” Colo.Rev. Stat. § 10-7-106. . The Sather stipulation is not as clear because it does not directly state what happens if Sather does nothing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.