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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-114 (2026)

Delay in trial - undertaking

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

If either party requests a delay in trial longer than five days, the court in its discretion may, upon good cause shown, require either of the parties to give bond or other security approved and fixed by the court in an amount for the payment to the opposite party of such sum as he may be damaged due to the delay.

Source: L. 1885: p. 228, § 13. R.S. 08: § 2613. C.L. § 6379. CSA: C. 70, § 14. CRS 53: § 58-1-14. L. 61: p. 393, § 6. C.R.S. 1963: § 58-1-14. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 566, § 4, effective March 13.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Beeghly v. MacK, 20 P.3d 610 (Colo. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beeghly v. MacK, 20 P.3d 610 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 22× “The trial court issued a default judgment and granted possession of the property to Beeghly because Mack and the Trust failed to post bond as ordered pursuant to section 13-40-114, 5 C.R.S. (2000), of the FED statute.”
Butler v. Farner, 704 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 5× “Under section 13-40-114, 6 C.R.S. (1973), 6 if either party requests a delay in trial for more than five days, the court may require the party to post bond in an amount sufficient to cover damages to the other party resulting from the delay.”
Schuler v. Oldervik, 143 P.3d 1197 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Additionally, defendants failed to avail themselves of the procedure under § 13-40-114, C.R.S.2005, to request a delay of trial in order to conduct any necessary discovery.”
Francam Bldg. Corp. v. Fail, 646 P.2d 345 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 6× “1973, and continuation of the trial date for a period longer than five days is conditioned upon the posting of bond, section 13-40-114, C.R.S. 1973. Further, the issues which *351 may be litigated in an unlawful detainer action have been quite limited historically.”
Lindsay v. Dist. Court ex rel. City & Cnty. of Denver, 694 P.2d 843 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 6× “1 On September 3, 1982, Westmor filed a motion in the district court to set bond pursuant to section 13-40-114, 6 C.R.S. (1973) (Forcible Entry and Detainer).”
In Re Mercy Hous. Mgmt. Grp. Inc. v. Naomi Bermudez., 2024 CO 68 (Colo. 2024). · cites it 2× “311(b); and order parties to "give bond or other security" if they request a trial delay longer than five days, § 13-40-114, C.R.S. (2024). ¶84 In sum, we fully recognize that our ruling today may make things more challenging for our county courts.”
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.