Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act".

Source: L. 91: Entire article added, p. 1681, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: This section was numbered as section 12 in the uniform act. Colorado placed it here and renumbered the succeeding sections accordingly. Colorado also used its own numbering system for subsections and paragraphs within sections. Where necessary, these changes will be noted in the comments.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 2× “Under the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“CUFTA”), §§ 38-8-101 to -112, C.R.S. (2015), any action to avoid an intentionally fraudulent transfer is extinguished if not brought within four years after the transfer was made or, if later, within one year after the…”
Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002). “In the event of a fraudulent transfer, the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, §§ 38-8-101 through 38-8-112, 10 C.R.S. (2002), affords a means of pre-judgment creditor protection in particular circumstances.”
Double Oak Constr. L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Dev. Int'l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff filed an action against defendants for civil conspiracy and for fraudulent conveyance in violation of the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), § 38-8-101, C.R.S.2002. Plaintiff also asserted a claim for breach of a special duty against Ho and Yoo and an…”
Sender v. Mann, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D. Colo. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 38-8-101 et seq., as well as “other applicable fraudulent transfer law and the common law.”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 18 P.3d 762 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “" Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act § 38-8-101, C.R.S8.1999. While a single badge of fraud may only create suspi-clon of fraud, several badges of fraud considered together may infer intent to defraud.”
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Sedwick v. Gwinn, 73 Wash.App.”
Vickery v. Evelyn V. Trumble Living Trust, 277 P.3d 864 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Background The principal question presented is whether the amendment of a revocable trust to change the contingent beneficiary from a judgment debtor to the debtor's daughter constitutes a violation of the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), §§ 38-8-101 to -112,…”
Touchtone Grp., LLC v. Rink, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Colo. 2012). · cites it 2× “Whether Plaintiff States a Claim for Relief Under the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“CUFTA”) and the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“PUFTA”) Plaintiff claims that Mantria fraudulently transferred funds to all named defendants in violation of CUFTA,…”
Sands v. New Age Fam. P'ship, Ltd., 897 P.2d 917 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Notably, throughout § 38-8-101, et seq., the term “obligation” occurs in the alternative with the term “transfer.”
Silverberg v. Colantuno, 991 P.2d 280 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Defendants’ next contention is that E & A’s transfer of assets in the Go Forward plan was a fraudulent transfer under § 38-8-101, C.R.S.1997, because in effecting that *287 transfer Silverberg intended to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.”
Manion v. Providian Nat'l Bank, 269 B.R. 232 (D. Colo. 2001). · cites it 2× “Providian sought declaratory relief, asking the court to set aside the Man-ion Deeds of Trust pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-8-101, and injunctive relief, asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the Boulder County Public Trustee from issuing a public…”
Meadow Homes Dev. Corp. v. Bowens, 211 P.3d 743 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “He argues, for example, that Meadow Homes was not entitled to relief under the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), sections 38-8-101 to -112, C.R.S.2008. This is a moot point because while Meadow Homes asserted a CUFTA claim, the trial court did not grant relief…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-101(8) — 1 case
Sender v. Mann, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D. Colo. 2006). “§ 38-8-101 et seq., as well as “other applicable fraudulent transfer law and the common law.”
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.