(1) In this section, "net contribution" of a party means the sum of all deposits to an account made by or for the party, less all payments from the account made to or for the party which have not been paid to or applied to the use of another party and a proportionate share of any charges deducted from the account, plus a proportionate share of any interest or dividends earned, whether or not included in the current balance. The term includes deposit life insurance proceeds added to the account by reason of death of the party whose net contribution is in question.
(2) During the lifetime of all parties, an account belongs to the parties in proportion to the net contribution of each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. As between parties married to each other, in the absence of proof otherwise, the net contribution of each is presumed to be an equal amount.
(3) A beneficiary in an account having a POD designation has no right to sums on deposit during the lifetime of any party.
(4) An agent in an account with an agency designation has no beneficial right to sums on deposit.
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 913, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 15-15-103 as it existed prior to 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Bryant v. Cmty. Choice Credit Union, 160 P.3d 266 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “She argues that, under § 15-15-211, C.R.$.2006, the funds in the account were owned by each accountholder in proportion to the respective amounts each contributed, and that, in combination, §§ 1515-206 and 15-15-211(2), C.”
Morrison v. Kobernusz (In Re Kobernusz), 160 B.R. 844 (D. Colo. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 15-15-211. There may well be a serious question as to whether this section applies at all, but Anna cannot use it as a shield in this case.”
Harvey v. Harvey, 841 P.2d 375 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 5× “We conclude that § 15-15-211(1), C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.) governs this situation, and that the court erred in awarding the full amount of these accounts to the son without consideration of this statute.”
Est. of Westfall v. Westfall, 942 P.2d 1227 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “); § 15-15-211, C.R.S. (1966 Cum.Supp.). Approximately two months after the dissolution action began, decedent also removed husband’s name from two other joint credit union accounts (post-filing accounts).”
In re the Est. of Sandstead, 2016 COA 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “was beneficially entitled under section 15-15-211 belongs to the surviving parties in equal shares .”
In re the Est. of Sandstead, 2016 COA 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “was beneficially entitled under section 15-15-211 belongs to the surviving parties in equal shares .”
Est. of Marie M. Chavez (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶ 26 Next, Gilbert contends, in conclusory fashion, that the proposed instructions on multi-party accounts, §§ 15-15-211 to -212, C.R.S 2021, and nominee accounts, § 15-1-502, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-15-211(1) — 1 case
Harvey v. Harvey, 841 P.2d 375 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
“We conclude that § 15-15-211(1), C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.) governs this situation, and that the court erred in awarding the full amount of these accounts to the son without consideration of this statute.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-15-211(2) — 6 cases
Morrison v. Kobernusz (In Re Kobernusz), 160 B.R. 844 (D. Colo. 1993).
“Colo.Rev.Stat. § 15-15-211. There may well be a serious question as to whether this section applies at all, but Anna cannot use it as a shield in this case.”
Bryant v. Cmty. Choice Credit Union, 160 P.3d 266 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“She argues that, under § 15-15-211, C.R.$.2006, the funds in the account were owned by each accountholder in proportion to the respective amounts each contributed, and that, in combination, §§ 1515-206 and 15-15-211(2), C.”
Harvey v. Harvey, 841 P.2d 375 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
“We conclude that § 15-15-211(1), C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.) governs this situation, and that the court erred in awarding the full amount of these accounts to the son without consideration of this statute.”
In re the Est. of Sandstead, 2016 COA 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“was beneficially entitled under section 15-15-211 belongs to the surviving parties in equal shares .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-15-211(3) — 1 case
Est. of Westfall v. Westfall, 942 P.2d 1227 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“); § 15-15-211, C.R.S. (1966 Cum.Supp.). Approximately two months after the dissolution action began, decedent also removed husband’s name from two other joint credit union accounts (post-filing accounts).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-15-211(4) — 1 case
Bryant v. Cmty. Choice Credit Union, 160 P.3d 266 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“She argues that, under § 15-15-211, C.R.$.2006, the funds in the account were owned by each accountholder in proportion to the respective amounts each contributed, and that, in combination, §§ 1515-206 and 15-15-211(2), 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.