Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202 (2026)

Elective-share

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Elective-share amount. The surviving spouse of a decedent who dies domiciled in this state has a right of election, under the limitations and conditions stated in this part 2, to take an elective-share amount equal to fifty percent of the value of the marital-property portion of the augmented estate.

(2) (a) Supplemental elective-share amount. If the sum of the amounts described in sections 15-11-207, 15-11-209 (1)(a), and that part of the elective-share amount payable from the decedent's net probate estate and nonprobate transfers to others under section 15-11-209 (3)(a) and (3)(b) is less than fifty thousand dollars, the surviving spouse is entitled to a supplemental elective-share amount equal to fifty thousand dollars, minus the sum of the amounts described in those sections. The supplemental elective-share amount is payable from the decedent's net probate estate and from recipients of the decedent's nonprobate transfers to others in the order of priority set forth in section 15-11-209 (3)(a) and (3)(b).

(b) The court shall increase or decrease the dollar amount stated in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) based on the cost of living adjustment as calculated and specified in section 15- 10-112.

(3) Effect of election on statutory benefits. If the right of election is exercised by or on behalf of the surviving spouse, the exempt property and family allowance, if any, are not charged against but are in addition to the elective-share and supplemental elective-share amounts.

(4) Nondomiciliary. The right, if any, of the surviving spouse of a decedent who dies domiciled outside this state to take an elective-share in property in this state is governed by the law of the decedent's domicile at death.

Source: L. 2014: Entire part R&RE, (HB 14-1322), ch. 296, p. 1222, § 2, effective August 6.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 15-11-201 as it existed prior to 2014.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Beren v. Beren, 2015 CO 29 (Colo. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Beren v. Beren, 2015 CO 29 (Colo. 2015). · cites it 15× “{ 2 Reading the elective-share statutes together with the probate court's equitable authority, we conclude that the Colorado Probate Code's plain language demonstrates that a particular statutory provision dealing with the spouse's elective share, section 15-11-202(1), C.R.S.…”

Matter of Est. of Smith, 718 P.2d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 12× “The findings of the trial court consist largely of detailed arithmetical computations made pursuant to § 15-11-202, C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) (outlining how an augmented estate is to be calculated).”

Matter of Est. of Novitt, 549 P.2d 805 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff contends on appeal that § 15-11-202, C.R.S.1973, applies to all trusts regardless of date of creation and that had the legislature intended that July 1, 1974, serve as a cut-off date it would have included such a provision.”

Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc., 63 P.3d 353 (Colo. 2003). “(2002) (requiring that a promissory note be supported by collateral having a fair market value at least equal to the principal amount of the note in order for the note to qualify as consideration for the issuance of shares); § 15-11-202(1)(a)(XII), 5 C.R.S. (2002) (requiring…”

Matter of Est. of Abbott, 571 P.2d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “We have previously held that the provisions of the Probate Code pertaining to the augmented estate, § 15-11-202(1), C.R.S. 1973, do not have retroactive effect.”

Est. of Barnhart v. Burkhardt, 574 P.2d 500 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 3× “It affirmed the probate court as to the nonapplication of section 15-11-202, C.R.S. 1973, to the decedent’s estate.”

Est. of Barnhart, 563 P.2d 972 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “The court also held that there was no evidence to indicate that the transfers were fraudulent or colorable, or that they did not take effect at the time they were made. The court thereupon denied the petition.”

Est. of Westfall v. Westfall, 942 P.2d 1227 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “See §§ 15-11-202 and 15-11-203, C.R.S. (1996 Cum.”

Beren v. Goodyear (In re Est. of Beren), 412 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “¶ 87 In addition, the structure of the Code shows that apportionment under section 15-12-916(2) is unrelated to identifying and allocating general administrative expenses for purposes of the augmented estate, which are addressed in section 15-11-202. But only section…”

In re Est. of Cloos, 2018 COA 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “See §§ 15-11-202 to -208, C.R.S. 2018. She further argued that the FA and EPA claims had been fully satisfied.”

In Re Est. of Eakin, 708 P.2d 476 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” Under § 15-11-202(1), C.R.S. (1984 Cum. Supp.), a decedent’s estate is first to be reduced by funeral and administrative expenses before the augmented estate is computed.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(1) — 6 cases

Beren v. Beren, 2015 CO 29 (Colo. 2015). “{ 2 Reading the elective-share statutes together with the probate court's equitable authority, we conclude that the Colorado Probate Code's plain language demonstrates that a particular statutory provision dealing with the spouse's elective share, section 15-11-202(1), C.R.S.…”

Matter of Est. of Novitt, 549 P.2d 805 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). “Plaintiff contends on appeal that § 15-11-202, C.R.S.1973, applies to all trusts regardless of date of creation and that had the legislature intended that July 1, 1974, serve as a cut-off date it would have included such a provision.”

Matter of Est. of Abbott, 571 P.2d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). “We have previously held that the provisions of the Probate Code pertaining to the augmented estate, § 15-11-202(1), C.R.S. 1973, do not have retroactive effect.”

Matter of Est. of Smith, 718 P.2d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “The findings of the trial court consist largely of detailed arithmetical computations made pursuant to § 15-11-202, C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) (outlining how an augmented estate is to be calculated).”

In Re Est. of Eakin, 708 P.2d 476 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “” Under § 15-11-202(1), C.R.S. (1984 Cum. Supp.), a decedent’s estate is first to be reduced by funeral and administrative expenses before the augmented estate is computed.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(1)(a)(XI1) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(1)(a)(XII) — 2 cases

Beren v. Goodyear (In re Est. of Beren), 412 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “¶ 87 In addition, the structure of the Code shows that apportionment under section 15-12-916(2) is unrelated to identifying and allocating general administrative expenses for purposes of the augmented estate, which are addressed in section 15-11-202. But only section…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(1)(b) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(2) — 3 cases

In re Est. of Cloos, 2018 COA 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “See §§ 15-11-202 to -208, C.R.S. 2018. She further argued that the FA and EPA claims had been fully satisfied.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(2)(a) — 2 cases

In re Est. of Cloos, 2018 COA 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “See §§ 15-11-202 to -208, C.R.S. 2018. She further argued that the FA and EPA claims had been fully satisfied.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(2)(a)(I) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-202(3) — 1 case

In re Est. of Cloos, 2018 COA 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “See §§ 15-11-202 to -208, C.R.S. 2018. She further argued that the FA and EPA claims had been fully satisfied.”

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.