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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54-107 (2026)

Exemptions in bankruptcy

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

The exemptions provided in section 522 (d) of the federal bankruptcy code of 1978, title 11 of the United States Code, as amended, are denied to residents of this state. Exemptions authorized to be claimed by residents of this state shall be limited to those exemptions expressly provided by the statutes of this state.

Source: L. 81: Entire section added, p. 894, § 3, effective July 1.

ARTICLE 54.5

Garnishment

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: In Re Keyworth, 47 B.R. 966 (D. Colo. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Keyworth, 47 B.R. 966 (D. Colo. 1985). · cites it 3× “CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS This Court was called upon to rule on the constitutionality of Colorado’s “opt out” statute, § 13-54-107, C.R.S.1973, In re Parrish, 19 B.”
In Re Larson, 260 B.R. 174 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2001). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-54-107. Thus, the applicable and available exemptions to a debtor filing bankruptcy and residing in Colorado are defined by the Colorado exemption statutes.”
Ranes v. Molen (In Re Ranes), 31 B.R. 70 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “The Debtor argues first that § 13-54-107, C.R.S.1973, [the Colorado “opt-out” statute allowed by 11 U.”
In re Withington, 594 B.R. 696 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 2× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54-107 . III. INTERPRETING THE 2005 AMENDMENTS In lengthening the domiciliary requirement for claiming non-bankruptcy exemptions, Congress sought to curb forum shopping before a bankruptcy filing.”
In Re Mata, 115 B.R. 288 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “” C.R.S. § 13-54-107. Thus, the Debtors’ right in *290 this case to exempt their IRA must be found, if at all, in the statutes of the State of Colorado.”
Dominion Bank of the Cumberlands, Na v. James R. Nuckolls Judy M. Nuckolls, 780 F.2d 408 (4th Cir. 1985). “1985); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-54-107 (Supp.1984); Del.”
Robinson v. Robinson (In Re Robinson), 114 B.R. 716 (D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “Colo. Rev.Stat. § 13-54-107 (1987); see generally In re Parrish, 19 B.”
In re Kelsey, 477 B.R. 870 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 2× “20 ; 2 Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-54-107. Accordingly, the Debtors could not claim the federal exemptions, and were forced into claiming exemptions within the rubric of § 522(b)(3).”
In Re Starkey, 116 B.R. 259 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “C.R.S. § 13-54-107. Thus, the right of the Debtors to claim an exemption in their pension funds is governed by the provisions of section 522(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code which provides: (b) Notwithstanding section 541 of this title, an individual debtor may exempt from property…”
In Re Weiss, 51 B.R. 224 (D. Colo. 1985). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to this authority, Colorado enacted § 13-54-107 C.R.S. 1973, as amended, thereby opting out of the federal exemptions contained in 11 U.”
Lincoln v. Cherry Creek Homeowners Ass'n (In Re Lincoln), 30 B.R. 905 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1983). “1973, § 13-54-107, § 38-41-201, and § 38-41-202, these liens are null and void as judicial liens.”
In Re Van Winkle, 265 B.R. 247 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2001). · cites it 2× “Colorado has opted out of the exemptions contained in the Bankruptcy Code, see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54-107 (2000), and established a specific list of exemptions that are available to debtors in Colorado.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.