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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-604 (2026)

Procedure if security agreement covers real property or fixtures

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

(a) If a security agreement covers both personal and real property, a secured party may proceed:

(1) Under this part 6 as to the personal property without prejudicing any rights with respect to the real property; or

(2) As to both the personal property and the real property in accordance with the rights with respect to the real property, in which case the other provisions of this part 6 do not apply.

(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, if a security agreement covers goods that are or become fixtures, a secured party may proceed:

(1) Under this part 6; or

(2) In accordance with the rights with respect to real property, in which case the other provisions of this part 6 do not apply.

(c) Subject to the other provisions of this part 6, if a secured party holding a security interest in fixtures has priority over all owners and encumbrancers of the real property, the secured party, after default, may remove the collateral from the real property.

(d) A secured party that removes collateral shall promptly reimburse any encumbrancer or owner of the real property for the cost of repair of any physical injury caused by the removal. The secured party need not reimburse the encumbrancer or owner for any diminution in value of the real property caused by the absence of the goods removed or by any necessity of replacing them. A person entitled to reimbursement may refuse permission to remove until the secured party gives adequate assurance for the performance of the obligation to reimburse.

Source: L. 2001: Entire article R&RE, p. 1400, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: (1) The provisions of this section are similar to former §§ 4-9-313 (8) and 4-9-501 (4) as they existed prior to 2001.

(2) Colorado legislative change: Colorado did not adopt the phrase "other than the debtor" after the word "property" in the first sentence in subsection (d).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2002–2012 · leading case: Telluride Resort & Spa, L.P. v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 40 P.3d 1260 (Colo. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Telluride Resort & Spa, L.P. v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 40 P.3d 1260 (Colo. 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 4-9-604(a)(2), 2 CRS. (2001). In this case, the parties agree that the public trustee's foreclosure sale included the hotel personal property pursuant to section 4-9-604(a)(2).”
Mesa Cnty. Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Allen, 318 P.3d 46 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “138 The Allens submitted no evidence to the trial court to show that mutual ditch shares are "commonly dealt in on seeu-rities exchanges or markets or commonly recognized in any area in which it is issued or dealt in as a medium for investment," as required by the statutory…”
U.S. Bank v. Roberts (In Re Roberts), 367 B.R. 677 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2007). · cites it 2× “er of an interest in or lien on real property, including a lease or rents thereunder, except to the extent that provision is made for: (A) Liens on real property in sections 4-9-203 3 and 4-9-308; 4 (B) Fixtures in section 4-9-334; (C) Fixture filings in sections 4-9-501,…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-604(a)(2): 1 case
Telluride Resort & Spa, L.P. v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 40 P.3d 1260 (Colo. 2002). “§ 4-9-604(a)(2), 2 CRS. (2001). In this case, the parties agree that the public trustee's foreclosure sale included the hotel personal property pursuant to section 4-9-604(a)(2).”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-604(b)(2): 1 case
Mesa Cnty. Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Allen, 318 P.3d 46 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “138 The Allens submitted no evidence to the trial court to show that mutual ditch shares are "commonly dealt in on seeu-rities exchanges or markets or commonly recognized in any area in which it is issued or dealt in as a medium for investment," as required by the statutory…”
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.