Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-125 (2026)

Limit on supersedeas bond

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any civil action brought under any legal theory, the amount of a supersedeas bond necessary to stay execution of a judgment granting legal, equitable, or any other relief during the entire course of all appeals or discretionary reviews of the judgment by all appellate courts shall be set in accordance with applicable law; except that the total amount of the supersedeas bonds that are required collectively of all appellants during the appeal of a civil action may not exceed twenty-five million dollars in the aggregate, regardless of the amount of the judgment that is appealed.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, if an appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that an appellant who has posted a supersedeas bond is intentionally dissipating or diverting assets outside the ordinary course of its business for the purpose of avoiding payment of the judgment, a court may enter orders that are necessary to protect the appellee or that require the appellant to post a supersedeas bond in an amount up to and including the total amount of the judgment that is appealed.

Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 1871, § 1, effective May 20.

ARTICLE 17 Attorney Fees Law reviews: For article, "Attorneys' Fees Against Parties and Attorneys", see 13 Colo. Law. 1202 (1984); for article, "Attorney Fees: The English Rule in Colorado", see 13 Colo. Law. 1642 (1984); for comment, "Attorney Fee Assessments for Frivolous Litigation in Colorado", see 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 663 (1985); for article, "Civil Rights", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with attorney fees in civil rights litigation, see 62 Den. U. L. Rev. 71 (1985); for article, "Federal Practice and Procedure", which discusses a Tenth Circuit decision dealing with attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, see 62 Den. U. L. Rev. 215 (1985); for article, "Managing and Streamlining the Small Lawsuit", see 15 Colo. Law. 1389 (1986); for article, "Revisiting the Recovery of Attorney Fees and Costs in Colorado", see 33 Colo. Law 11 (April 2004); for article, "The 'Finality' of an Order When a Request for Attorney Fees Remains Outstanding", see 43 Colo. Law. 41 (May 2014).

PART 1

FRIVOLOUS, GROUNDLESS, OR VEXATIOUS ACTIONS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Colo. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Colo. 2023). · cites it 31× “Whether section 13-16-125, concerning the procedure for setting bond amounts in civil actions, is an unconstitutional invasion of this Court’s exclusive authority to promulgate procedural rules.”
Bdo Seidman v. Banco Espirito Santo Int'l, Ltd., 998 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “§ 16-55-214 (2003) ($25 million cap); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-16-125 (2003) ($25 million cap); Ga.”
the Huff Energy Fund, L.P., WRH Energy Partners, L.L.C., William R.\Bill\" Huff (2015). · cites it 3× “§ 12-2108 13 r ! Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-125 13, 14 [" Conn.”
Huff Energy Fund, L.P. v. Longview Energy Co., 510 S.W.3d 479 (2014). “55-214(a) (maximum appeal bond required in any civil action under any legal theory limited to $25 million regardless of the amount of the judgment); Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-16-125(1) (total amount of the supersedeas bonds that are required collectively of all appellants during…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-125(1): 2 cases
In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Colo. 2023). “Whether section 13-16-125, concerning the procedure for setting bond amounts in civil actions, is an unconstitutional invasion of this Court’s exclusive authority to promulgate procedural rules.”
Huff Energy Fund, L.P. v. Longview Energy Co., 510 S.W.3d 479 (2014). “55-214(a) (maximum appeal bond required in any civil action under any legal theory limited to $25 million regardless of the amount of the judgment); Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-16-125(1) (total amount of the supersedeas bonds that are required collectively of all appellants during…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-125(2): 1 case
In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Colo. 2023). “Whether section 13-16-125, concerning the procedure for setting bond amounts in civil actions, is an unconstitutional invasion of this Court’s exclusive authority to promulgate procedural rules.”
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.