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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-114 (2026)

Promise by one of parties in joint interest

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

No joint debtor, obligor, or his personal representative or successor shall lose the benefit of the provisions of this article so as to be chargeable by reason only of any acknowledgment, promise, or payment made by any other of them.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 701, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former §§ 13-80-120 and 13-80-124 as they existed prior to 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1977–1996 · 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 18× “II Section 13-80-114, 6A C.R.S. (1987), a provision under the broader statutory scheme dealing with limitations on personal actions, states as follows: Promise by one of parties in joint interest.”
Lucas v. Abbott, 601 P.2d 1376 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 13× “1973, 1 and by the statute of limitations for trusts, section 13-80-114, C.R.S. 1973, which states: “Bills of relief, in case of the existence of a trust not cognizable by the courts of common law and in all other cases not provided for in this article shall be filed within five…”
Elk River Assocs. v. Huskin, 691 P.2d 1148 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs contend that this ruling was erroneous, or in the alternative, that § 13-80-114, C.R.S., rather than § 13-80-108, C.”
SEC. Nat. Bank v. Peters, Writer & Christensen, 569 P.2d 875 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “1963, 87-1-15 (now § 13-80-114, C.R.S.1973), a claim under C.”
Van Schaack v. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd., 856 P.2d 15 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “At the time plaintiff sold her stock to defendants on August 3, 1983, the statute of limitations that was in effect was found under § 13-80-114, C.R.S. (originally enacted Colo.”
Bent v. Ferguson, 791 P.2d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “Then, in July 1988, plaintiff again filed a complaint which sought, inter alia, a decree quieting title to a portion of the property.”
Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 916 P.2d 643 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “With respect to plaintiffs' first claim for relief alleging breach of fiduciary duty as to the 1983 investments, the applicable limitation provision is § 13-80-114, C.R.S. (repealed and reenacted by Colo.”
Magna Assocs. v. Torgrove, 585 F. Supp. 585 (D. Colo. 1984). · cites it 3× “See Colo.Rev. Stat. §§ 13-80-114 and 13-80-109 (1973).”
Laymon v. McComb, 524 F. Supp. 1091 (D. Colo. 1981). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that the five year statute of limitations, C.R.S. § 13-80-114, is applicable to actions involving breaches of fiduciary duties.”
Frisco Motel P'ship v. H.S.M. Corp., 791 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Frisco’s remaining argument is that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim for breach of fiduciary duty because such a claim is not within the three-year statute of limitations, § 13-80-108(l)(b), but instead is within the five-year statute of limitations, § 13-80-114,…”
Abbott v. Lucas, 615 P.2d 37 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “” Both transactions occurred more than five years prior to the date that Sandstone initiated this proceeding, and the trial court ruled that the statute of limitations began to run on the date that International became insolvent.”
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.