Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108 (2026)

Notice to persons outside state

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

(1) Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a person is outside this state may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made. Notice must be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice but may be by publication if other means are not effective.

(2) Proof of service may be made in the manner prescribed by the law of this state or by the law of the state in which the service is made.

(3) Notice is not required for the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1522, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former §§ 14-13-105 and 14-13-106 as they existed prior to 2000.

Cross references: For manner of giving notice through service by mail or publication, see C.R.C.P. 4(g); for manner of giving notice through personal service outside state, see C.R.C.P. 4(e).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 14× “Finally, the court found that, pursuant to § 14-13-108, C.R.S. 1973, Colorado was an inconvenient forum to decide the custody issue.”
In Re the Marriage of Mowrer, 817 P.2d 612 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “1982); see also § 14-13-108, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). A similar result has been reached in a dependency and neglect proceeding.”
Petition of Edilson, 637 P.2d 362 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 3× “Edilson's arguments concerning section 14-13-108, C.R.S.1973, are without merit.”
People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “163, § 14-13-103(2) at 557 (formerly codified at § 14-13-108(2), C.R.S.1998). Accordingly, the court instructed the jury that: A custody order means a court decision and court orders and instructions providing for the care, maintenance and control of a child, including parenting…”
In Re the Marriage of Doria, 855 P.2d 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “See § 14-13-108(5), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).”
G.B. v. Arapahoe Cnty. Court, 890 P.2d 1153 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to section 14-13-108(7), 6B C.R.S. (1987), the father also requested attorney fees and costs for having to defend the lawsuit in the Colorado court.”
Ramos v. Lamm, 539 F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 14-13-108(7) Inconvenient forum. § 14-13-109(3) Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.”
Lustig v. Lustig, 1997 SD 24 (S.D. 1997). “See § 14-13-103(2) and § 14-13-108(6), C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6B).”
In Re Custody of Dunn, 701 P.2d 158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, Sandra requested that the court decline jurisdiction pursuant to § 14-13-108, C.R.S. (inconvenient forum), or § 14-13-109, C.”
In re the Parental Responsibilities of L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 48-1233 (2010); moved without success to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; appealed without success the Nebraska district court's finding of jurisdiction; moved post-judgment for dismissal of the Nebraska district court's final orders without success; and finally appealed…”
In Re the Marriage of Nicholson, 648 P.2d 681 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Then, it shall determine, based upon the record before it, whether it wishes to decline the exercise of its jurisdiction under § 14-13-108, C.R.S.1973, with respect to the 1980 motion for change of custody.”
In re the Adoption of K.L.L., 160 P.3d 383 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 14-13-108, C.R.9S.2006; People in Interest of A.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108(2) — 1 case
People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “163, § 14-13-103(2) at 557 (formerly codified at § 14-13-108(2), C.R.S.1998). Accordingly, the court instructed the jury that: A custody order means a court decision and court orders and instructions providing for the care, maintenance and control of a child, including parenting…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108(3) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). “Finally, the court found that, pursuant to § 14-13-108, C.R.S. 1973, Colorado was an inconvenient forum to decide the custody issue.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108(3)(a) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). “Finally, the court found that, pursuant to § 14-13-108, C.R.S. 1973, Colorado was an inconvenient forum to decide the custody issue.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108(5) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). “Finally, the court found that, pursuant to § 14-13-108, C.R.S. 1973, Colorado was an inconvenient forum to decide the custody issue.”
In Re the Marriage of Doria, 855 P.2d 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “See § 14-13-108(5), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108(6) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Doria, 855 P.2d 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “See § 14-13-108(5), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).”
Lustig v. Lustig, 1997 SD 24 (S.D. 1997). “See § 14-13-103(2) and § 14-13-108(6), C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6B).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-108(7) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). “Finally, the court found that, pursuant to § 14-13-108, C.R.S. 1973, Colorado was an inconvenient forum to decide the custody issue.”
G.B. v. Arapahoe Cnty. Court, 890 P.2d 1153 (Colo. 1995). “Pursuant to section 14-13-108(7), 6B C.R.S. (1987), the father also requested attorney fees and costs for having to defend the lawsuit in the Colorado court.”
Ramos v. Lamm, 539 F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 14-13-108(7) Inconvenient forum. § 14-13-109(3) Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.”
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.