Colorado Voidable Transactions Act
SB133 updates Colorado’s existing fraudulent transfer law by renaming the “Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act” as the “Colorado Voidable Transactions Act” and conforming the statute to the newer Uniform Voidable Transactions Act framework. The bill modernizes terminology throughout the article, replacing “fraudulent” with “voidable” in key provisions and updating definitions and cross-references to reflect current statutory language, including electronic records, signatures, and entity definitions.
Substantively, the bill clarifies when transfers or obligations can be challenged by creditors, how insolvency is determined, what evidence and burdens of proof apply, and what remedies are available. It also revises limitation periods for bringing claims, addresses transfers involving insiders and lienors, and adds a provision stating the article modifies the federal E-SIGN Act only to the extent allowed by federal law. The bill applies to claims filed on or after its effective date, so it changes the legal framework for future creditor actions rather than reopening past cases.
The bill amends Title 38, Article 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which governs transfers made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. It updates the operative state law on voidable transfers, including creditor remedies, transferee defenses, burdens of proof, insolvency presumptions, and statute-of-limitations rules, while also revising a related publication statute in Title 2 to reference the new act name and official comments. Creditors, debtors, transferees, bankruptcy practitioners, and commercial litigants are the primary parties affected.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved with strong bipartisan momentum. It passed Senate Finance unanimously, advanced from both chambers with committee recommendations for the consent calendar or committee of the whole, and ultimately passed the Senate and House with large margins, though the House third reading vote included a notable minority of opposition. The lack of committee transcripts suggests little recorded public controversy in the available materials, and the overall voting pattern indicates general agreement on updating the statute to align with modern uniform law terminology and procedures.
The main points of potential contention are technical rather than ideological: the bill changes long-standing “fraudulent transfer” terminology to “voidable transactions,” adjusts burdens of proof and remedies, and alters limitation periods and insider-transfer rules. Those changes may matter to creditors seeking recovery and to debtors or transferees defending challenged transfers, especially because the bill specifies that certain claims must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and limits when money judgments may be entered against non-debtors. The House floor vote, with 13 nays, suggests some legislators may have had reservations about the substantive legal effects even though the measure was generally treated as a modernization bill.