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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105 (2026)

Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors

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

(1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (a) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or (b) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor: (I) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (II) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. (2) In determining actual intent under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether: (a) The transfer or obligation was to an insider; (b) The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer; (c) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed; (d) Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit; (e) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets; (f) The debtor absconded; (g) The debtor removed or concealed assets; (h) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred; (i) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; (j) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and (k) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

Source: L. 91: Entire article added, p. 1685, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: This section was numbered as section 4 in the uniform act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 15× “§§ 38-8-105, -108. Unlike Midstate, actions under CUFTA involve “only the parties’ private interests or equities.”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 29× “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
Leverage Leasing Co. v. Smith, 143 P.3d 1164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “Section 38-8-105, C.R.S.2005. “Reasonably equivalent value is required in order to constitute adequate consideration” under the UFTA.”
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 32× “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
Great Neck Plaza L.P. v. Le Peep Restaurants, LLC, 37 P.3d 485 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Section 38-8-105(1) reads in the disjunctive, and a fraudulent transfer legitimately can be established either way.”
Vickery v. Evelyn V. Trumble Living Trust, 277 P.3d 864 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “§§ 38-8-105, -106, -108, C.R.$.2010. Here, plaintiff Monica Vickery's complaint alleges the following facts pertinent to her claim under section 38-8-105, which we must assume are true for purposes of reviewing the dismissal of her complaint under C.”
Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair), 594 B.R. 712 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 12× “First and Fifth Claims and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105 (1)(a). Compl.”
Fitzgibbons v. Thomason (In Re Thomason), 202 B.R. 768 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1996). · cites it 13× “§ 544 (b) and C.R.S. §§ 38-8-105(1)(a) and (b). The case concerns certain transfers of property between Marvin Lee Thomason (“Debtor”) and his wife, Caryl G.”
Double Oak Constr. L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Dev. Int'l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Section 38-8-105(l)(a), C.R.S.2002. A creditor is a “person who has a claim,” and a claim is “a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, un-liquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unma-tured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured…”
Krol v. Unglaub (In Re Unglaub), 332 B.R. 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005). · cites it 7× “(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was…”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 18 P.3d 762 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “However, § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code has language very similar to § 38-8-105. 11 U.S.C. § 548 (1994 & Supp.”
Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002). “(2002) ("creditor" is a person who has a claim); § 38-8-105(1)(a) 10 CRS. (2002) (transfers are fraudulent if made with actual intent to hinder, defraud, or delay any creditor); § 38-8-108, 10 C.”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1) — 8 cases
Great Neck Plaza L.P. v. Le Peep Restaurants, LLC, 37 P.3d 485 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “Section 38-8-105(1) reads in the disjunctive, and a fraudulent transfer legitimately can be established either way.”
Pernick v. Computershare Trust Co., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (D. Colo. 2015).
Krol v. Unglaub (In Re Unglaub), 332 B.R. 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005). “(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was…”
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
Sands v. New Age Fam. P'ship, Ltd., 897 P.2d 917 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(a) — 17 cases
Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). “§§ 38-8-105, -108. Unlike Midstate, actions under CUFTA involve “only the parties’ private interests or equities.”
Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002). “(2002) ("creditor" is a person who has a claim); § 38-8-105(1)(a) 10 CRS. (2002) (transfers are fraudulent if made with actual intent to hinder, defraud, or delay any creditor); § 38-8-108, 10 C.”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
Vickery v. Evelyn V. Trumble Living Trust, 277 P.3d 864 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “§§ 38-8-105, -106, -108, C.R.$.2010. Here, plaintiff Monica Vickery's complaint alleges the following facts pertinent to her claim under section 38-8-105, which we must assume are true for purposes of reviewing the dismissal of her complaint under C.”
Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair), 594 B.R. 712 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2018). “First and Fifth Claims and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105 (1)(a). Compl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(b) — 11 cases
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
Krol v. Unglaub (In Re Unglaub), 332 B.R. 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005). “(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was…”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 18 P.3d 762 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “However, § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code has language very similar to § 38-8-105. 11 U.S.C. § 548 (1994 & Supp.”
Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair), 594 B.R. 712 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2018). “First and Fifth Claims and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105 (1)(a). Compl.”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(b)(D) — 1 case
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(b)(I) — 1 case
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(b)(I1) — 1 case
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(b)(II) — 1 case
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. CLGP, LLC, 251 P.3d 523 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)(1)-(H) of the Bankruptey Code, which also deals with fraudulent transfers, are persuasive when analyzing sections 38-8-105(1) and -106. See Prefatory Note, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, § 38-8-101; Schempp v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2) — 8 cases
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
Leverage Leasing Co. v. Smith, 143 P.3d 1164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 38-8-105, C.R.S.2005. “Reasonably equivalent value is required in order to constitute adequate consideration” under the UFTA.”
In Re Ludwig, 345 B.R. 310 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2006).
Silverberg v. Colantuno, 991 P.2d 280 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 18 P.3d 762 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “However, § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code has language very similar to § 38-8-105. 11 U.S.C. § 548 (1994 & Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(D) — 1 case
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(F) — 1 case
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(a) — 3 cases
Great Neck Plaza L.P. v. Le Peep Restaurants, LLC, 37 P.3d 485 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “Section 38-8-105(1) reads in the disjunctive, and a fraudulent transfer legitimately can be established either way.”
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 18 P.3d 762 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “However, § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code has language very similar to § 38-8-105. 11 U.S.C. § 548 (1994 & Supp.”
Sensoria, LLC v. Kaweske (D. Colo. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(b) — 1 case
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(c) — 1 case
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(d) — 3 cases
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
Silverstein v. Wolf (D. Colo. 2025).
Silverstein (D. Colo. 2026).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(2)(i) — 2 cases
Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair), 588 B.R. 605 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2018).
Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair), 594 B.R. 712 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2018). “First and Fifth Claims and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105 (1)(a). Compl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(20)(G) — 1 case
Schempp v. Lucre Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 75 P.3d 1157 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court considered each of the factors in § 38-8-105(2), and plaintiff challenges the findings on all factors except those relating to § 88-8-105(2)(a), where the court found that the transfer to Luere and Rollings was to an insider; § 38-8-105(2)(F), where the court…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(l)(B) — 1 case
Peters v. Bryan (In Re Bryan), 415 B.R. 454 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2009).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(l)(a) — 7 cases
Double Oak Constr. L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Dev. Int'l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 38-8-105(l)(a), C.R.S.2002. A creditor is a “person who has a claim,” and a claim is “a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, un-liquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unma-tured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured…”
Touchtone Grp., LLC v. Rink, 913 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Colo. 2012).
Fitzgibbons v. Thomason (In Re Thomason), 202 B.R. 768 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1996). “§ 544 (b) and C.R.S. §§ 38-8-105(1)(a) and (b). The case concerns certain transfers of property between Marvin Lee Thomason (“Debtor”) and his wife, Caryl G.”
Sands v. New Age Fam. P'ship, Ltd., 897 P.2d 917 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
Krol v. Unglaub (In Re Unglaub), 332 B.R. 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005). “(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(l)(b) — 3 cases
Leverage Leasing Co. v. Smith, 143 P.3d 1164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 38-8-105, C.R.S.2005. “Reasonably equivalent value is required in order to constitute adequate consideration” under the UFTA.”
Silverberg v. Colantuno, 991 P.2d 280 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
Weinman v. Hamilton Props. Corp. (In Re Hamilton), 186 B.R. 991 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1995).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(l)(b)(I) — 2 cases
Tiger v. Anderson, 976 P.2d 308 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
Fitzgibbons v. Thomason (In Re Thomason), 202 B.R. 768 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1996). “§ 544 (b) and C.R.S. §§ 38-8-105(1)(a) and (b). The case concerns certain transfers of property between Marvin Lee Thomason (“Debtor”) and his wife, Caryl G.”
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.