Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101 (2026)

Time of taking effect - provisions for transition

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

(1) This code takes effect on July 1, 1974.

(2) Except as provided elsewhere in this code, including but not limited to sections 15- 11-601, 15-11-701, 15-11-1106, and 15-17-103, on the effective date of this code or of any amendment to this code:

(a) The code or the amendment applies to governing instruments executed by decedents dying thereafter;

(b) The code or the amendment applies to any proceedings in court then pending or thereafter commenced, regardless of the time of the death of decedent, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court the former procedure should be made applicable in a particular case in the interest of justice or because of infeasibility of application of the procedure of this code or any amendment to this code;

(c) Every personal representative or other fiduciary holding an appointment on July 1, 1974, or before the effective date of an amendment to this code continues, to hold the appointment but has only the powers conferred by this code and by any amendment to this code and is subject to the duties imposed by this code and by any amendment to this code with respect to any act occurring or done thereafter;

(d) An act done before July 1, 1974, or before the effective date of an amendment to this code, in any proceeding is not impaired by this code or by any amendment to this code. If a right is acquired, extinguished, or barred upon the expiration of a prescribed period of time which has commenced to run by the provisions of any statute before July 1, 1974, or before the effective date of an amendment to this code, the provisions of that statute shall remain in force with respect to that right;

(e) Any rule of construction or presumption provided in this code or in any amendment to this code applies to governing instruments executed before July 1, 1974, or before the effective date of an amendment to this code, unless there is a clear indication of a contrary intent;

(f) No provision of this code or of any amendment to this code shall apply retroactively if the court determines that such application would cause the provisions to be retrospective in its operation in violation of section 11 of article II of the state constitution; and

(g) The law in effect at the time of death identifies the heirs and determines the shares under intestacy in accordance with sections 15-11-101 to 15-11-103.

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1645, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 153-8-101. L. 75: (2)(b) and (2)(c) amended, p. 606, § 61, effective July 1. L. 2013: Entire section amended, (SB 13-077), ch. 190, p. 779, § 14, effective August 7. L. 2018: IP(2) amended, (SB 18-180), ch. 169, p. 1194, § 15, effective January 1, 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: In re Est. of Ramstetter v. Hostetler, 2016 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Est. of Ramstetter v. Hostetler, 2016 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 68× “” It accepted the parties’ position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S. 2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
Ramstetter v. Hostetler (In re Est. of Ramstetter), 411 P.3d 1043 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 69× “" It accepted the parties' position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S.2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
In Re Est. of Lopata, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 5× “See section 15-17-101(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Supp.”
Matter of Est. of Daigle, 634 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 3× “Section 15-17-101(1), C.R.S. 1973. If the legislature intended to exempt late claims by minors and other persons under disability from the jurisdictional bar of the nonclaim statute it reasonably may be assumed that appropriate statutory language would have been included in…”
Matter of Est. of Novitt, 549 P.2d 805 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 7× “The court relied on the language of § 15-17-101, C.R.S.1973, which provides that the Colorado Probate Code shall not impair any accrued right, and concluded that a "vested legal relationship between Settlor, trustee and beneficiary of a trust" is such a protected right.”
of Gallegos, 2021 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “before the effective date of an amendment to this code, in any proceeding is not impaired by this code or by any amendment to this code.” But appellants’ argument fails because the adoption of Vialpando was not impaired or otherwise affected by the 2010 amendment to the Probate…”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
Est. of Barnhart, 563 P.2d 972 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Since § 15-17-101(2)(d), C.R.S.1973, provides that the Colorado Probate Code shall not impair any right which accrued prior to July 1, 1974, it follows that the augmented estate provisions of the Code are inapplicable to these joint tenancy arrangements.”
Lopata v. Metzel, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 5× “See section 15-17-101(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Supp.”
In Re Est. of Ralston, 674 P.2d 1001 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Although, the new probate code applies to wills of decedents dying after July 1, 1974, § 15-17-101(2)(a), C.R.S.1973, Ralston no longer had a will on that date because it had been previously revoked.”
Est. of Petteys ex rel. Beattie v. Farmers State Bank of Brush, 381 P.3d 386 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “”); § 15-17-101 (2)(f) (“No provision of this code or of any amendment to this code shall apply retroactively if the court determines that such application would cause the provisions to be retrospective in its operation in violation of section 11 of article II of the state…”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(1) — 3 cases
Matter of Est. of Daigle, 634 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1981). “Section 15-17-101(1), C.R.S. 1973. If the legislature intended to exempt late claims by minors and other persons under disability from the jurisdictional bar of the nonclaim statute it reasonably may be assumed that appropriate statutory language would have been included in…”
In Re Est. of Lopata, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982). “See section 15-17-101(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Supp.”
Lopata v. Metzel, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982). “See section 15-17-101(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(2) — 2 cases
In re Est. of Ramstetter v. Hostetler, 2016 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “” It accepted the parties’ position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S. 2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
Ramstetter v. Hostetler (In re Est. of Ramstetter), 411 P.3d 1043 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “" It accepted the parties' position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S.2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(2)(a) — 7 cases
In re Est. of Ramstetter v. Hostetler, 2016 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “” It accepted the parties’ position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S. 2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
Ramstetter v. Hostetler (In re Est. of Ramstetter), 411 P.3d 1043 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “" It accepted the parties' position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S.2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
In Re Est. of Ralston, 674 P.2d 1001 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “Although, the new probate code applies to wills of decedents dying after July 1, 1974, § 15-17-101(2)(a), C.R.S.1973, Ralston no longer had a will on that date because it had been previously revoked.”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
Phillips v. Liechty, 674 P.2d 1001 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(2)(b) — 5 cases
In re Est. of Ramstetter v. Hostetler, 2016 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “” It accepted the parties’ position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S. 2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
Ramstetter v. Hostetler (In re Est. of Ramstetter), 411 P.3d 1043 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “" It accepted the parties' position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S.2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
Est. of Petteys ex rel. Beattie v. Farmers State Bank of Brush, 381 P.3d 386 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “”); § 15-17-101 (2)(f) (“No provision of this code or of any amendment to this code shall apply retroactively if the court determines that such application would cause the provisions to be retrospective in its operation in violation of section 11 of article II of the state…”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(2)(d) — 4 cases
In Re Est. of Lopata, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982). “See section 15-17-101(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Supp.”
of Gallegos, 2021 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “before the effective date of an amendment to this code, in any proceeding is not impaired by this code or by any amendment to this code.” But appellants’ argument fails because the adoption of Vialpando was not impaired or otherwise affected by the 2010 amendment to the Probate…”
Est. of Barnhart, 563 P.2d 972 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). “Since § 15-17-101(2)(d), C.R.S.1973, provides that the Colorado Probate Code shall not impair any right which accrued prior to July 1, 1974, it follows that the augmented estate provisions of the Code are inapplicable to these joint tenancy arrangements.”
Lopata v. Metzel, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982). “See section 15-17-101(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(2)(e) — 2 cases
In re Est. of Ramstetter v. Hostetler, 2016 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “” It accepted the parties’ position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S. 2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
Ramstetter v. Hostetler (In re Est. of Ramstetter), 411 P.3d 1043 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “" It accepted the parties' position that application of section 15-11-806 was determined by section 15-17-101(2), C.R.S.2015, but concluded that section 15-17-101(2) did not make section 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(2)(f) — 3 cases
of Gallegos, 2021 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “before the effective date of an amendment to this code, in any proceeding is not impaired by this code or by any amendment to this code.” But appellants’ argument fails because the adoption of Vialpando was not impaired or otherwise affected by the 2010 amendment to the Probate…”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
Est. of Robert A. Petteys v. Farmers State Bank, 2016 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Laws 700 -02; see also § 15-17-101(2)(a). Because Petteys died in 2009, it is inapplicable in this case.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-17-101(d) — 1 case
Matter of Est. of Novitt, 549 P.2d 805 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). “The court relied on the language of § 15-17-101, C.R.S.1973, which provides that the Colorado Probate Code shall not impair any accrued right, and concluded that a "vested legal relationship between Settlor, trustee and beneficiary of a trust" is such a protected right.”
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.