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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-113 (2026)

New promise - effect of payment

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

No acknowledgment or promise shall be evidence of a new or continuing contract sufficient to take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitations, unless it is in writing signed by the party to be charged; but this section shall not alter the effect of a payment of principal or interest. Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 701, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-80-125 as it existed prior to 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: Cache Nat'l Bank v. Lusher, 882 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cache Nat'l Bank v. Lusher, 882 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 6× “See § 13-80-113, 6A C.R.S. (1987) (concerning effect of acknowledgment or promise as evidence of new or continuing contract sufficient "to take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitations").”
Samples-Ehrlich v. Simon, 876 P.2d 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Section 13-80-113, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Grant, 30 P.3d 667 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “1999 ("Consent Form," means a verified written statement, signed and notarized); and § 13-80-113, C.R.S.1999 (to be evidence of new or continuing contract, an acknowledgment or promise must be signed and in writing) with § 13-10-114, C.”
Hickerson v. Vessels, 316 P.3d 620 (Colo. 2014). “Section 114 protects joint debtors from losing protection of the statute of limitations by way the actions by other joint debtors. Section 115 states that an endorsement is insufficient to prove partial payment for the purpose of reviving a claim outside the statute of…”
Mountainwood Condo. Homeowners Ass'n v. Cal-Colorado, 765 P.2d 1066 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “However, § 13-80-113, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A) (formerly § 13-80-125, C.”
Vessels v. Hickerson, 327 P.3d 277 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 13-80-113, C.R.S.2011 (emphasis added); see also Lieske v.”
Hutchins v. LA Plata Mountain Resources, Inc., 2016 CO 45 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 2× “In addition, for nearly a century, by statute in this jurisdiction, an acknowledgement or promise must be in writing and signed by the promisor “to take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitations.”
Berthoud Nat'l Bank v. Dunn, 762 P.2d 759 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “1093 (1899); see § 13-80-113, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A).”
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.