Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5 (2026)

General limitation of actions - six years

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The following actions shall be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues and not thereafter: (a) All actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money due to the person bringing the action, all actions for the enforcement of rights set forth in any instrument securing the payment of or evidencing any debt, and all actions of replevin to recover the possession of personal property encumbered under any instrument securing any debt; except that actions to recover pursuant to section 38-35-124.5 (3), C.R.S., shall be commenced within one year; (b) All actions for arrears of rent; (c) All actions brought under section 13-21-109, except actions brought under section 13-21-109 (2); (d) All actions by the public employees' retirement association to collect unpaid contributions from employers for persons who are not members or inactive members at the time the association first notifies an employer of its claim for unpaid contributions. This paragraph (d) shall apply to causes of action as provided in section 24-51-402 (2), C.R.S. (e) Repealed.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 697, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (1)(a) amended, p. 568, § 4, effective July 1. L. 89: (1)(c) added, p. 757, § 5, effective July 1. L. 95: (1)(d) added, p. 562, § 20, effective May 22. L. 2001: (1)(e) added, p. 326, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2002: (1)(a) amended, p. 1331, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2006: (1)(e) amended, p. 2001, § 48, effective July 1. L. 2013: (1)(e) repealed, (SB 13-205), ch. 276, p. 1440, § 2, effective August 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-80-110 as it existed prior to 1986.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 73 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC, & Duane Layton, 2023 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC, & Duane Layton, 2023 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 20× “Instead, the applicable statute of limitations is section 13-80-103.5, C.R.S. 2023. Because the employee’s claim was timely under that statute, the majority reverses the judgment of the district court.”

Portercare Adventist Health Sys. v. Lego, 286 P.3d 525 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 6× “We granted certiorari to determine the following two issues: (1) Did the court of appeals improperly construe § 13-80-103.5, C.R.S. (2010), which states that [alll actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money .”

Cache Nat'l Bank v. Lusher, 882 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 24× “CNB alleged that the applicable statute of limitations, section 13-80-103.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987), [3] had run on Lusher's ability to enforce payment by Shirley Watts under the terms of the promissory note executed on March 3, 1980.”

Torres-Vallejo v. CreativExteriors, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (D. Colo. 2016). · cites it 10× “5”) with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5 (l)(a) (applying six-year statute of limitations to “[a]ll actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money due”).”

Sobolewski v. Boselli & Sons, LLC, 342 F. Supp. 3d 1178 (D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 12× “§ 13-80-101 (3 years for contract actions) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (2 years for tort actions).”

n v. Weidner Holdings, LLC, 2019 COA 186 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 15× “Gunderson contends the general statute of limitations, section 13-80-103.5, C.R.S. 2019, applies to the notes, while the Weidner defendants contend that the statute of limitations under 1Weidner Holdings seeks to enforce the notes against Jerry Gunderson, but not Mr.”

Tivoli Ventures, Inc. v. Bumann, 870 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 5× “Bumann and Tallman moved for summary judgment contending that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in section 13-80-103.5(l)(a), *1246 6A C.R.S.”

Thurman v. Tafoya, 895 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 10× “They disputed the validity of the note and asserted that Thurman’s action was time-barred by the six year statute of limitations period prescribed by section 13-80-103.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987), and section 13-80-108(4), 6A C.”

Barnett v. Surefire Med., Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 12× “Whether a Six-Year Limitations Period Applies Although the parties' briefs discuss the choice of law issue first, the Court will begin by addressing whether the six-year limitations period under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5 (1)(a) applies given that six years is the longest…”

Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003). · cites it 4× “(2002) (tort actions for trespass shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues), with § 13-80-103.5(a) (actions to recover a liquidated debt shall be brought within six years); § 13-80-103.”

Rotenberg v. Richards, 899 P.2d 365 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “6A) establishes a time limitation of three years for the initiation of “[a]ll contract actions,” except “as otherwise provided in section 13-80-103.5 [C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”

Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer Cnty., Inc., 274 P.3d 547 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 6× “Under the six-year statute of limitations defined in section 13-80-103.5(1), C.R.S. (2011), what would be the accrual date on which the debt claimed in this case became due, pursuant to section 13-80-108(4), C.”

Show all 73 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5(1) — 2 cases

Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer Cnty., Inc., 274 P.3d 547 (Colo. 2012). “Under the six-year statute of limitations defined in section 13-80-103.5(1), C.R.S. (2011), what would be the accrual date on which the debt claimed in this case became due, pursuant to section 13-80-108(4), C.”

Balle-Tun v. Zeng & Wong, Inc. (D. Colo. 2022).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5(1)(a) — 32 cases

Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC, & Duane Layton, 2023 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). “Instead, the applicable statute of limitations is section 13-80-103.5, C.R.S. 2023. Because the employee’s claim was timely under that statute, the majority reverses the judgment of the district court.”

Portercare Adventist Health Sys. v. Lego, 286 P.3d 525 (Colo. 2012). “We granted certiorari to determine the following two issues: (1) Did the court of appeals improperly construe § 13-80-103.5, C.R.S. (2010), which states that [alll actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money .”

Sobolewski v. Boselli & Sons, LLC, 342 F. Supp. 3d 1178 (D. Colo. 2018). “§ 13-80-101 (3 years for contract actions) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (2 years for tort actions).”

Barnett v. Surefire Med., Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (D. Colo. 2018). “Whether a Six-Year Limitations Period Applies Although the parties' briefs discuss the choice of law issue first, the Court will begin by addressing whether the six-year limitations period under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5 (1)(a) applies given that six years is the longest…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5(a) — 1 case

Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003). “(2002) (tort actions for trespass shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues), with § 13-80-103.5(a) (actions to recover a liquidated debt shall be brought within six years); § 13-80-103.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5(b) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5(l)(a) — 9 cases

Tivoli Ventures, Inc. v. Bumann, 870 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1994). “Bumann and Tallman moved for summary judgment contending that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in section 13-80-103.5(l)(a), *1246 6A C.R.S.”

Torres-Vallejo v. CreativExteriors, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (D. Colo. 2016). “5”) with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5 (l)(a) (applying six-year statute of limitations to “[a]ll actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money due”).”

Fishburn v. City of Colorado Springs, 919 P.2d 847 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Tivoli Ventures, Inc. v. Tallman, 852 P.2d 1310 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Fowler & Peth, Inc. v. Regan, 151 P.3d 1281 (Colo. 2007).

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.