Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-3-309 (2026)

Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) of this section must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, section 4-3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

Source: L. 94: Entire article R&RE, p. 858, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 4-3-804 as it existed prior to 1994.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: k v. Esperanza Architecture, 2021 COA 119 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

k v. Esperanza Architecture, 2021 COA 119 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “To enforce a negotiable instrument, one must be “(i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section…”

Kim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Kim), 585 B.R. 881 (D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 8× “After the hearing, the bankruptcy court, in a written order, found that (1) the Note is lost; (2) pursuant to Section 4-3-309 of the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-3-309 , Chase was in possession of the original Note and was entitled to enforce it when…”

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 538 P.3d 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “Code § 3309 (West 1992); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4-3-309 (West 1994); Conn.”

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Garcia (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “Code § 3309 (West 1992); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4-3-309 (West 1994); Conn.”

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.