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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-109 (2026)

Limitations apply to noncompulsory counterclaims and setoffs

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

Except for causes of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim, the limitation provisions of this article shall apply to the case of any debt, contract, obligation, injury, or liability alleged by a defending party as a counterclaim or setoff. A counterclaim or setoff arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim shall be commenced within one year after service of the complaint by the opposing party and not thereafter.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 700, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-80-112 as it existed prior to 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Duell v. United Bank of Pueblo, N.A., 892 P.2d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Duell v. United Bank of Pueblo, N.A., 892 P.2d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 30× “Plaintiffs first assert that the trial court erroneously determined that their claims were barred by appropriate statutes of limitations because: (1) none of their claims accrued before their land was foreclosed upon in January 1990; (2) § 13-80-109, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A),…”
Skyland Metro. Dist. v. Mountain West Enter., LLC, 184 P.3d 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “Statutes of Limitations The developers contend that their counterclaims for declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment are compulsory counterclaims that were timely filed under § 13-80-109, C.R.S8.2006, and that the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.”
Hamilton v. Cunningham, 880 F. Supp. 1407 (D. Colo. 1995). · cites it 10× “Were Colorado law to apply, however, Cunningham asserts his claims were timely because they arose out of the same transaction that formed basis of the Hamilton Parties’ Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and thus fall within the scope of Colorado’s revival statute, C.R.S. §…”
E-21 Eng'g, Inc. v. Steve Stock & Assocs., Inc., 252 P.3d 36 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “If on the other hand, the trial court finds that there was no agreement to arbitrate, we conclude that the court erred in dismissing Stock's counterclaims and that they should be reinstated pursuant to section 13-80-109, C.R.S.2009, because they are compulsory.”
Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Colo. 2000). · cites it 13× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-80-109. When Full Draw filed its first complaint on May 30, 1997, AMO’s trade libel counterclaim based on Mr.”
Makeen v. Hailey, 2015 COA 181 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “3 Although the trial court agreed that the claims were time barred under the substantive statutes of limitations, the court found that section 13-80-109, C.K.S.2015, revived the stale counterclaims.”
Lucas v. Abbott, 601 P.2d 1376 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 6× “Lucas moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was barred by the statute of limitations for fraud, section 13-80-109, C.R.S. 1973, 1 and by the statute of limitations for trusts, section 13-80-114, C.”
Plains Metro. Dist. v. KEN-CARYL RANCH, 250 P.3d 697 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “We finally hold that, even though KC's claims might otherwise have been untimely, KC's right to assert them as compulsory counterclaims was revived by section 13-80-109, C.R.S.2009. We *699 accordingly reverse the judgment for Plains and remand for further proceedings.”
Dubin v. Miller, 132 F.R.D. 269 (D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 4× “) (formerly Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-109 [1973]) supplies the three-year limitations period applicable to plaintiff’s claim.”
SEC. Nat. Bank v. Peters, Writer & Christensen, 569 P.2d 875 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “1963, § 87-1-10 [now § 13-80-109, C.R.S.1973] did not begin to run until the time of the discovery of the matters complained of .”
Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, 472 F. Supp. 402 (D. Colo. 1979). · cites it 4× “These relate to actions based upon fraud (Colo.Rev. Stat. § 13-80-109), upon implied or constructive fraud (Colo.”
Norton v. Leadville Corp., 610 P.2d 1348 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “Both parties agree that in the absence of a federal statute of limitations applicable to § 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, plaintiffs’ claim under this section is governed by the Colorado statute of limitations for common law fraud actions, § 13-80-109, C.R.S.1973. That…”
Show all 37 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.