(1) Although a document, or writing added upon a document, was not executed in compliance with section 15-11-502, the document or writing is treated as if it had been executed in compliance with that section if the proponent of the document or writing establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document or writing to constitute:
(a) The decedent's will;
(b) A partial or complete revocation of the will;
(c) An addition to or an alteration of the will; or
(d) A partial or complete revival of the decedent's formerly revoked will or a formerly revoked portion of the will.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply only if the document is signed or acknowledged by the decedent as his or her will or if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent erroneously signed a document intended to be the will of the decedent's spouse.
(3) Whether a document or writing is treated under this section as if it had been executed in compliance with section 15-11-502 is a question of law to be decided by the court, in formal proceedings, and is not a question of fact for a jury to decide.
(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a designated beneficiary agreement under article 22 of this title.
Source: L. 94: Entire part R&RE, p. 998, § 3, effective July 1, 1995. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 886, § 2, effective June 1. L. 2010: (4) added, (SB 10-199), ch. 374, p. 1750, § 10, effective July 1.
Cross references: For provisions relating to the time of taking effect or the provisions for transition of this code, see § 15-17-101.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case:
In Re Est. of Wiltfong, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Est. of Wiltfong, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 23× “Randall Rex, domestic partner of Deceased, beneficiary of propounded will, and proponent of document asserted to be a will pursuant to C.R.S. § 15-11-503, Claimant-Appellant, v.”
In Re Est. of Schumacher, 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 19× “Section 15-11-503 Petitioner contends that the probate court erred in applying section 15-11-503, C.R.S. 2010, because (1) the changes were not signed by decedent as his will and (2) there is no showing "by clear and convincing evidence" that decedent intended the cross-outs to…”
Matter of Est. of Grobman, 635 P.2d 231 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 11× “1973, and the applicable rules for the construction of a holographic will pursuant to § 15-11-503, C.R.S. 1973. On May 5, 1969, Rosa Grobman executed a formal, attested will nominating Edward A.”
In Re Est. of Sky Dancer, 13 P.3d 1231 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Relying upon § 15-11-503, C.R.S.2000, the legatee contends that the trial court erred in finding that the decedent died intestate.”
Matter of Est. of Fegley, 589 P.2d 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 7× “Our statute does not explicitly require that the testator's signature appear at the end of the document: "A will which does not comply with § 15-11-502 is a valid holographic will whether or not witnessed, if the signature and the material provisions are in the handwriting of…”
In Re Est. of Evarts, 166 P.3d 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “However, to effectuate the intent of a decedent in the distribution of his or her property, § 15-11-503, C.R.S.2006, permits the probate of wills that are flawed in execution under § 15-11-502.”
Rex v. Tovrea, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 20× “Johns, Probating Flawed Wills: Colorado’s New CRS § 15-11-503, 25 Colo. Law. 85 (Nov.1996).”
People v. Lutz, 897 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1995).
“§ 15-11-503, 6B C.R.S. (1987); § 15-11-502(2), 6B C.”
Olson v. Nugent, 166 P.3d 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “However, to effectuate the intent of a decedent in the distribution of his or her property, § 15-11-503, C.R.S.2006, permits the probate of wills that are flawed in execution under § 15-11-502.”
Caldwell v. Caldwell, 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Section 15-11-503(1) and (2), state: (1) Although a document, or writing added upon a document, was not executed in compliance with section 15-11-502, the document or writing is treated as if it had been executed in compliance with that seetion if the proponent of the document…”
Fisher v. Barnes, 13 P.3d 1231 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “As pertinent here, the adopted revisions included a new provision, effective July 1, 1995, that is now § 15-11-503, C.R.8.2000. This provision states: Although a will was not executed in compliance with section 15-11-502, the will is treated as if it had been executed in…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-503(1) — 5 cases
In Re Est. of Wiltfong, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Randall Rex, domestic partner of Deceased, beneficiary of propounded will, and proponent of document asserted to be a will pursuant to C.R.S. § 15-11-503, Claimant-Appellant, v.”
In Re Est. of Schumacher, 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 15-11-503 Petitioner contends that the probate court erred in applying section 15-11-503, C.R.S. 2010, because (1) the changes were not signed by decedent as his will and (2) there is no showing "by clear and convincing evidence" that decedent intended the cross-outs to…”
In Re Est. of Evarts, 166 P.3d 161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“However, to effectuate the intent of a decedent in the distribution of his or her property, § 15-11-503, C.R.S.2006, permits the probate of wills that are flawed in execution under § 15-11-502.”
Rex v. Tovrea, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Johns, Probating Flawed Wills: Colorado’s New CRS § 15-11-503, 25 Colo. Law. 85 (Nov.1996).”
Caldwell v. Caldwell, 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 15-11-503(1) and (2), state: (1) Although a document, or writing added upon a document, was not executed in compliance with section 15-11-502, the document or writing is treated as if it had been executed in compliance with that seetion if the proponent of the document…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-503(2) — 4 cases
In Re Est. of Wiltfong, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Randall Rex, domestic partner of Deceased, beneficiary of propounded will, and proponent of document asserted to be a will pursuant to C.R.S. § 15-11-503, Claimant-Appellant, v.”
In Re Est. of Schumacher, 253 P.3d 1280 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 15-11-503 Petitioner contends that the probate court erred in applying section 15-11-503, C.R.S. 2010, because (1) the changes were not signed by decedent as his will and (2) there is no showing "by clear and convincing evidence" that decedent intended the cross-outs to…”
Rex v. Tovrea, 148 P.3d 465 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Johns, Probating Flawed Wills: Colorado’s New CRS § 15-11-503, 25 Colo. Law. 85 (Nov.1996).”
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.