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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101 (2026)

Legislative declaration

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

The general assembly recognizes that courts of record of this state have become increasingly burdened with litigation which is straining the judicial system and interfering with the effective administration of civil justice. In response to this problem, the general assembly hereby sets forth provisions for the recovery of attorney fees or licensed legal paraprofessional fees in courts of record when the bringing or defense of an action, or part thereof (including any claim for exemplary damages), is determined to have been substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious. All courts shall liberally construe the provisions of this article 17 to effectuate substantial justice and comply with the intent set forth in this section.

Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 796, § 2, effective July 1. L. 84: Entire section R&RE, p. 460, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2024: Entire section amended, (HB 24-1291), ch. 131, p. 465, § 4, effective August 7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 220 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Parental Responsibilities Concerning D.P.G, 2020 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parental Responsibilities Concerning D.P.G, 2020 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “The division also concludes that the magistrate and the district court abused their discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs pursuant to sections 13-17-101 and 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2019, because the appellant, although unsuccessful, presented an arguably meritorious legal…”
TBL Collectibles, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 10× “Craver's references to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101 ; (2) Mr. Craver's references to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 5-1-14; (3) Mr.”
Castillo v. Koppes-Conway, 148 P.3d 289 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “” Section 13-17-101, C.R.S.2005. The general assembly instructed us to “liberally construe the provisions of this article to effectuate substantial justice and comply with the intent set forth in this section.”
Lees v. James, 2018 COA 173 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “” § 13-17-101, C.R.S. 2018. 14 ¶ 33 Section 13-17-102(1) bestows a general grant of authority on any court of record to award reasonable attorney fees as part of a judgment, provided such an award is not precluded elsewhere in the article.”
W. United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 12× “1973 See section 13-17-101, (1988 Supp.). During the course of discovery, the Isaacs served interrogatories on Mr.”
Martinez v. Cont'l Enter., 730 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 9× “While there are no statutory provisions concerning specifically the award of attorney fees in foreclosure actions, the version of section 13-17-101, 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.), then in effect provided that a court could not award attorney fees unless the action by the adverse party…”
Kinsey v. Preeson, 746 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 11× “The defendant appeals from the award of attorney fees, contending that his defense to the action was not frivolous and the trial court did not make the necessary findings required by section 13-17-101, 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.).”
Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 5× “1983), adopted a definition of “frivolous” to be used in applying section 13-17-101(3), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Supp.”
People v. Shifrin, 342 P.3d 506 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “1 120 Defendant mistakenly relies on cases where separate findings are required to satisfy statutory elements, such as in section 13-17-101, C.R.S8.2018. But here, the trial court's findings, although limited, adequately explained the basis for its award.”
Rael v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 1210 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 14× “Section 13-17-101, 6 C.R.S.1973 (1978 Supp.”
Carruthers v. Carrier Access Corp., 251 P.3d 1199 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Carrier moved for an award of attorney fees under section 8-4-110(1) and section 13-17-101, C.R.S.2010, requesting an award of all the fees it had incurred in the case, totaling $140,442.”
Klein v. Tiburon Dev. LLC, 2017 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See § 13-17-101, C.R.S. 2016; cf. Wheeler, 74 P.”
Show all 220 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101(1) — 6 cases
W. United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1984). “1973 See section 13-17-101, (1988 Supp.). During the course of discovery, the Isaacs served interrogatories on Mr.”
Martinez v. Cont'l Enter., 730 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1986). “While there are no statutory provisions concerning specifically the award of attorney fees in foreclosure actions, the version of section 13-17-101, 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.), then in effect provided that a court could not award attorney fees unless the action by the adverse party…”
Kinsey v. Preeson, 746 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1987). “The defendant appeals from the award of attorney fees, contending that his defense to the action was not frivolous and the trial court did not make the necessary findings required by section 13-17-101, 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.).”
Ault Aerial Applicators, Inc. v. Irvine, 684 P.2d 949 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
In Re the Marriage of Erickson, 602 P.2d 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101(3) — 23 cases
Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363 (Colo. 1984). “1983), adopted a definition of “frivolous” to be used in applying section 13-17-101(3), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Supp.”
Kinsey v. Preeson, 746 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1987). “The defendant appeals from the award of attorney fees, contending that his defense to the action was not frivolous and the trial court did not make the necessary findings required by section 13-17-101, 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.).”
W. United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1984). “1973 See section 13-17-101, (1988 Supp.). During the course of discovery, the Isaacs served interrogatories on Mr.”
Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. Howard, 862 P.2d 925 (Colo. 1993).
Pedlow v. Stamp, 776 P.2d 382 (Colo. 1989).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101(4) — 1 case
Carroll v. Schrader (D. Colo. 2021).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101(6) — 1 case
Artes-Roy v. Lyman, 833 P.2d 62 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
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.