(1) Every conveyance or assignment in writing or otherwise of any estate or interest in lands, goods, or things in action or of any rents and profits issuing thereupon, and every charge upon lands, goods, or things in action or upon the rents and profits thereof made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors or other persons of their lawful suits, damages, forfeitures, debts, or demands, and every bond or other evidence of debt given, suits commenced, or decree or judgment suffered with the like intent as against the person so hindered, delayed, or defrauded shall be void.
(2) This section shall not apply to any transfer made or obligation incurred on or after July 1, 1991, and, for the applicability of this subsection (2), the time at which any such transfer or obligation is made or incurred shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of this title.
Source: R.S. p. 340, § 17. G.L. § 1267. G.S. § 1526. R.S. 08: § 2671. C.L. § 5116. CSA: C. 71, § 17. CRS 53: § 59-1-17. C.R.S. 1963: § 59-1-17. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 1690, § 3, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases, 1976–2012 · leading case:
Shepler v. Whalen, 119 P.3d 1084 (Colo. 2005).
Shepler v. Whalen, 119 P.3d 1084 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 6× “An equitable interest in the townhouse cannot arise solely from Altberger's perpetration of fraud.”
Sands v. New Age Fam. P'ship, Ltd., 897 P.2d 917 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 9× “Hence, because the transaction to which the statute refers occurred when Britvar conveyed assets to New Age in 1984, prior to the effective date of § 38-8-101, et seq.”
Jobin v. Ripley (In Re M & L Bus. Mach. Co.), 198 B.R. 800 (D. Colo. 1996).
· cites it 6× “§ 544 and Colo.Rev.Stat. § 38-10-117 (1982). Ripley argues the bankruptcy court erred: (1) in holding that the date of delivery of Ripley’s check to M & L Business Machine Co.”
Kearns Motor Co. v. Cimino (In Re Dreiling), 233 B.R. 848 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1999).
· cites it 8× “§ 542 ,544, 548, 549, and 550 and C.R.S. § 38-10-117 to recover certain moneys and the DTC stock which the Debtor transferred to their children.”
Yetter Well Serv., Inc. v. Cimarron Oil Co., 841 P.2d 1068 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “After a bench trial, the trial court found that the transfers of the properties’ interests from COC to Tandem were done with the intent to delay and hinder the plaintiff in violation of § 38-10-117, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). However, because outstanding interests in the…”
Emarine v. Haley, 892 P.2d 343 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “), for rescission of the agreement to participate in the joint venture, and to set aside the transfer of funds from debtor to his wife pursuant to § 38-10-117, C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol. 16A).”
Hill v. Walden (In re walden), 207 B.R. 1 (D. Colo. 1997).
· cites it 10× “” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 38-10-117 (1996 Supp.). In his ruling, Bankruptcy Judge Matheson concluded that Mr.”
New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “We agree that the voiding of the conveyance is, generally, the appropriate remedy in such cases; it is the remedy provided for by § 38-10-117, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 16A).”
Love v. Olson, 645 P.2d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The trial court found that deposit of the $90,000 to the joint bank account, together with wife’s subsequent withdrawal of the money, constituted a conveyance with intent to hinder creditors under § 38-10-117, C.R.S.1973, and declared that wife’s new residence was subject to…”
People v. Koller, 873 P.2d 761 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 4× “, contrary to section 38-10-117, 16A C.R.S. (1982). 2 At a meeting of the creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding in September 1992, the respondent admitted that one of the considerations for transferring the property to his wife was to avoid paying Romero’s judgment.”
Peters v. Bryan (In Re Bryan), 469 B.R. 341 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2012).
· cites it 15× “In evaluating the priority of liens, the Court of Appeals held that a fraudulent transfer under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 38-10-117 was not void ab initio, but rather voidable.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-10-117(1) — 2 cases
Peters v. Bryan (In Re Bryan), 469 B.R. 341 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2012).
“In evaluating the priority of liens, the Court of Appeals held that a fraudulent transfer under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 38-10-117 was not void ab initio, but rather voidable.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-10-117(2) — 1 case
Sands v. New Age Fam. P'ship, Ltd., 897 P.2d 917 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“Hence, because the transaction to which the statute refers occurred when Britvar conveyed assets to New Age in 1984, prior to the effective date of § 38-8-101, et seq.”
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.