(1) If an individual dies intestate as to all or a portion of the estate, property the decedent gave during the decedent's lifetime to an individual who, at the decedent's death, is an heir is treated as an advancement against the heir's intestate share only if
(i) the decedent declared in a contemporaneous writing or the heir acknowledged in writing that the gift is an advancement, or (ii) the decedent's contemporaneous writing or the heir's written acknowledgment otherwise indicates that the gift is to be taken into account in computing the division and distribution of the decedent's intestate estate.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, property advanced is valued as of the time the heir came into possession or enjoyment of the property or as of the time of the decedent's death, whichever first occurs.
(3) If the recipient of the property fails to survive the decedent, the property is not taken into account in computing the division and distribution of the decedent's intestate estate, unless the decedent's contemporaneous writing provides otherwise.
(4) An heir who has received from the intestate estate more than his or her share shall in no case be required to refund, except as otherwise provided by section 15-11-203.
Source: L. 94: Entire part R&RE, p. 979, § 3, effective July 1, 1995. L. 2022: Entire section amended, (SB 22-092), ch. 60, p. 275, § 5, effective August 10.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 15-11-110 as it existed prior to 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Est. of David v. Snelson, 776 P.2d 813 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 14× “He interpreted section 15-11-109 as unequivocally granting to adopted children the right to inherit from their natural parents.”
Lewis v. Schneider, 890 P.2d 148 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 13× “The personal representative contends the trial court erred in applying § 15-11-109, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) to determine that Lewis had established the paternity of Schneider beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Matter of Est. of Daigle, 642 P.2d 527 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Although we agree that the trial court erred by resorting to § 15-11-109(1)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.”
Matter of Est. of Bomareto, 757 P.2d 1135 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Section 15-11-109, C.R.S. was then in effect and provided that an adopted person was the child of the adopted person's natural parents for purposes of intestate succession, except to the extent that inheritance rights had been divested by a final decree of adoption under §…”
People in Interest of Mew, 600 P.2d 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Our conclusion that paternity actions survive is buttressed by the fact that the Probate Code, § 15-11-109, C.R.S.1973, expressly allows establishment of paternity following the death of the father for purposes of determining intestate succession.”
In Re Est. of David, 762 P.2d 745 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “" Section 15-11-109(1), C.R. S. (1987 Repl.”
Snelson v. Blixt, 762 P.2d 745 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “a final decree of adoption_” Section 15-11-109(1), C.R. S. (1987 Repl.”
Rohmeyer v. Bomareto, 757 P.2d 1135 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Section 15-11-109, C.R.S. was then in effect and provided that an adopted person was the child of the adopted person’s natural parents for purposes of intestate succession, except to the extent that inheritance rights had been divested by a final decree of adoption under §…”
In re the Est. of Haddan, 874 P.2d 1081 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “See § 15-11-109(1)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Nissler v. Smith, 642 P.2d 527 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “451 at 1558-59 and 1560. Contrary to the contention of Douglas and Scott, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-109(1) — 2 cases
In Re Est. of David, 762 P.2d 745 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“" Section 15-11-109(1), C.R. S. (1987 Repl.”
Snelson v. Blixt, 762 P.2d 745 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“a final decree of adoption_” Section 15-11-109(1), C.R. S. (1987 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-109(1)(a) — 4 cases
Matter of Est. of Daigle, 642 P.2d 527 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
“Although we agree that the trial court erred by resorting to § 15-11-109(1)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.”
In Re Est. of David, 762 P.2d 745 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“" Section 15-11-109(1), C.R. S. (1987 Repl.”
Snelson v. Blixt, 762 P.2d 745 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“a final decree of adoption_” Section 15-11-109(1), C.R. S. (1987 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-109(l)(a) — 2 cases
Est. of David v. Snelson, 776 P.2d 813 (Colo. 1989).
“He interpreted section 15-11-109 as unequivocally granting to adopted children the right to inherit from their natural parents.”
Nissler v. Smith, 642 P.2d 527 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
“451 at 1558-59 and 1560. Contrary to the contention of Douglas and Scott, C.”
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.