Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 4
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204 (2026)

After-acquired property - future advances

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

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, a security agreement may create or provide for a security interest in after-acquired collateral.

(b) Subject to subsection (b.1) of this section, a security interest does not attach under a term constituting an after-acquired property clause to:

(1) Consumer goods, other than an accession when given as additional security, unless the debtor acquires rights in them within ten days after the secured party gives value; or

(2) A commercial tort claim. (b.1) Subsection (b) of this section does not prevent a security interest from attaching: (1) To consumer goods as proceeds under section 4-9-315 (a) or commingled goods under section 4-9-336 (c); (2) To a commercial tort claim as proceeds under section 4-9-315 (a); or

(3) Under an after-acquired property clause to property that is proceeds of consumer goods or a commercial tort claim.

(c) A security agreement may provide that collateral secures, or that accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes are sold in connection with, future advances or other value, whether or not the advances or value are given pursuant to commitment.

Source: L. 2001: Entire article R&RE, p. 1336, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2023: IP(b) amended and (b.1) added, (SB 23-090), ch. 136, p. 547, § 47, effective August 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 4-9-204 as it existed prior to 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: Am. Heritage Bank & Trust Co. v. O. & E., Inc., 576 P.2d 566 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Heritage Bank & Trust Co. v. O. & E., Inc., 576 P.2d 566 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Section 4-9-204, C.R.S.1973, allows a security interest to attach to after-acquired property where there is an agreement therefor, under circumstances such as those involved here.”
Coop. Fin. Ass'n v. B & J Cattle Co., 937 P.2d 915 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, each alleging there was no issue as to any material fact. The trial court found that Cooperative held a valid perfected security interest in all of MRC’s livestock pursuant to § 4-9-103, C.”
Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 703 P.2d 1314 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the Bank’s alleged security agreement in crops was perfected through filing a financing statement in the proper county, nor was there evidence introduced as to when the Bank acquired its interest, or the purposes…”
Midland Bean Co. v. Farmers State Bank, 552 P.2d 317 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, a security interest cannot attach until (1) there is agreement that it attach; (2) value is given; and (3) the debtor has rights in the collateral, § 4-9-204(1), C.R.S. 1973. In this case, attachment was never effected since Brush Elevator at the time it gave a…”
In Re Grizaffi, 23 B.R. 137 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1982). · cites it 2× “” It should be pointed out that in this instance the Security Agreement itself did not have the future advance clause checked. When considering future advance “dragnet” clauses like the one contained in the Bank’s promissory note, the intention of the parties must be determined.”
Weld Colorado Bank v. E & E Constr., Inc., 653 P.2d 758 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Section 4-9-204, C.R.S.1973, Midland Bean Co.”
Vance v. Casebolt, 841 P.2d 394 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Section 4-9-204, C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2).”
Jackson Cnty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Maduff Mortg. Corp., 608 F. Supp. 588 (D. Colo. 1985). · cites it 2× “Under § 4-9-204(1), CNB’s security interest attached on April 29, 1982.”
Bd. OF CTY. COM'RS, ETC. v. Berkeley Vill., 580 P.2d 1251 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “priority between conflicting security interests in the same collateral shall be determined as follows: (a) In the order of filing if both are perfected by filing, regardless of which security interest attached first under § 4-9-204(1) and whether it attached before or after…”
PurCo Fleet Servs., Inc. v. Koenig, 240 P.3d 435 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 4-9-204(a) & official comments 2, 6, C.”
Olson v. Stone, 573 P.2d 98 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 2× “” 5 See section 4-9-204(4). C.R.S. 1973, comment 3.”
Greeley Nat'l Bank v. Sloan, 677 P.2d 409 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “n argues also that the Truth in Lending Act was violated because the phrase “a security interest in the property described below [the automobile] together with any and all optional equipment, additions, accessions, substitutions, and proceeds thereto and therefrom” that appears…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204(1) — 3 cases
Midland Bean Co. v. Farmers State Bank, 552 P.2d 317 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). “Furthermore, a security interest cannot attach until (1) there is agreement that it attach; (2) value is given; and (3) the debtor has rights in the collateral, § 4-9-204(1), C.R.S. 1973. In this case, attachment was never effected since Brush Elevator at the time it gave a…”
Jackson Cnty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Maduff Mortg. Corp., 608 F. Supp. 588 (D. Colo. 1985). “Under § 4-9-204(1), CNB’s security interest attached on April 29, 1982.”
Bd. OF CTY. COM'RS, ETC. v. Berkeley Vill., 580 P.2d 1251 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “priority between conflicting security interests in the same collateral shall be determined as follows: (a) In the order of filing if both are perfected by filing, regardless of which security interest attached first under § 4-9-204(1) and whether it attached before or after…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204(2) — 1 case
Greeley Nat'l Bank v. Sloan, 677 P.2d 409 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “n argues also that the Truth in Lending Act was violated because the phrase “a security interest in the property described below [the automobile] together with any and all optional equipment, additions, accessions, substitutions, and proceeds thereto and therefrom” that appears…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204(4) — 1 case
Olson v. Stone, 573 P.2d 98 (Colo. 1977). “” 5 See section 4-9-204(4). C.R.S. 1973, comment 3.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204(4)(a) — 1 case
Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 703 P.2d 1314 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the Bank’s alleged security agreement in crops was perfected through filing a financing statement in the proper county, nor was there evidence introduced as to when the Bank acquired its interest, or the purposes…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204(5) — 1 case
In Re Grizaffi, 23 B.R. 137 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1982). “” It should be pointed out that in this instance the Security Agreement itself did not have the future advance clause checked. When considering future advance “dragnet” clauses like the one contained in the Bank’s promissory note, the intention of the parties must be determined.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-204(a) — 1 case
PurCo Fleet Servs., Inc. v. Koenig, 240 P.3d 435 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 4-9-204(a) & official comments 2, 6, C.”
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.