Source: https://denverelderlaw.org/category/uncategorized/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:10:22+00:00

Document:
Colorado Aid in Dying – Coming to Your November Ballot?
Shall there be a change to the Colorado revised statutes to permit any mentally capable adult Colorado resident who has a medical prognosis of death by terminal illness within six months to receive a prescription from a willing licensed physician for medication that can be self-administered to bring about death; and in connection therewith, requiring two licensed physicians to confirm the medical prognosis, that the terminally-ill patient has received information about other care and treatment options, and that the patient is making a voluntary and informed decision in requesting the medication; requiring evaluation by a licensed mental health professional if either physician believes the patient may not be mentally capable; granting immunity from civil and criminal liability and professional discipline to any person who in good faith assists in providing access to or is present when a patient self-administers the medication; and establishing criminal penalties for persons who knowingly violate statutes relating to the request for the medication?
Yes, that is quite a sentence, isn’t it?! An Aurora pediatrician, Dr. Michelle Stanford, has filed a motion for rehearing with the Colorado State Title Setting Board, regarding the Title of Initiative #145, on the basis that the title and submission clause do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed state law. You can read the opening brief before the Colorado Supreme Court here. As to the form of this ballot initiative, keep in mind that Washington voters approved their state’s Death With Dignity Act by means of a statewide ballot initiative in a general election in November of 2008 (that was the second try at voter approval – the first attempt in 1991 was unsuccessful).
So – to the language of the initiative. . . . We are back to the term “mentally capable” again, which is not otherwise found in Colorado law. It is not clear to which part of the sentence the term “mentally capable” refers, which is troubling because there is no requirement of counseling in this initiative’s question, only for an evaluation in the event one of the physicians believes the patient may not be “mentally capable.” This forms the basis for some troubling ambiguity. Is it not capable to give informed consent to understand the life-ending nature of the prescription sought or – not capable due to some depression or other contributing mental health or other reason? I think both the question and a clear answer matter greatly!
I will reiterate again my reservations about the dearth of reporting and other requirements which were lacking from the second version of the proposed legislation, which was killed in the legislature in spring of this year. This question of physician assisted death is not at all likely to go away, and the debate could certainly benefit from less rhetoric and more practical considerations. Keep in mind most states still have outright prohibitions on assisted death or suicide in either their statutes or based on case law. A handful of states (Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, West Virginia and North Carolina) have no specific basis in statute or case law and are ambiguous as to the legality of physician assisted death. In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court in Baxter v. State of Montana, construed that state’s Terminally Ill Act in such a way as to allow physician assisted death.
With a goal of considering what is the dignity sought after in the physician assisted death initiative – a reprieve from intractable terminal pain and/or the dignity of choosing the time and circumstances of one’s demise? Interestingly, a fair number of Oregonians and Washingtonians who availed themselves of their states physician-assisted death laws did not actually die from the lethal cocktail of medications.
I recently read a piece by the former Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, published in the June 12, 2016 Denver Post. She is also the founder of The Conversation Project, an invaluable resource for people looking to make advance health care directives and other important arrangements regarding end-of-life care. I refer many people to the Conversation Project website.
A re-evaluation of the way Americans die is already underway (thank goodness). To the extent that the physician assisted death debate sheds light of the need for ALL ADULTS (read: anyone over 18 years of age) to think about and discuss their end of life wishes and communicate them to others in meaningful ways, then this debate is a productive one indeed. For many adults that means not simply filling out some living will form at a senior center and then placing it in a safe deposit box or secret location where it will only be discovered after your death!
I still talk to folks who do not wish to have the end of life discussion because . . . well, it’s not a lot of fun, and besides – they don’t have a life threatening illness. . . Based on my experience, the point when someone is in the throes of a diagnosis of or treatment of a life-threatening illness is the worst time to have that conversation. Do it now!
May is Elder Law Month, so today’s post will commemorate this effort to draw the public’s attention to the legal problems of the elderly. Because it serves the population of elders, elder law is a broad practice area and often overlaps or intersects other areas of law practice – like disability law, government benefits, discrimination and criminal law.
Elder law is also a niche practice area because it involves working with elders and an aging population in different areas of the law. Many of us work with elders who have physical challenges, some cognitive impairments and other difficulties, and we are together charting a new course for extended longevity and engaged and dignified elderhood. From my own perspective, working with elders gives me some unique and rewarding opportunities to work with people. I often provide counseling – as many other types of lawyers do, but counseling in elder law typically involves a number of nonlegal considerations which factor into the mix of legal questions which must be addressed. To my mind, the best description of this approach is “holistic.” In short, elder law practice is pretty “touchy feely” and I wouldn’t have it any other way! It demands well-honed listening skills from the attorney/counselor and requires a cultivated compassion for people and the situations in which we can find ourselves. Yes, of course I must mention a requisite fluency with the legal concerns in this area . . . which are frequently changing and evolving and while mostly based on state law, are often impacted by or driven by federal law as well.
The times have changed and many living arrangements of elders reflect this. Legal challenges for elders and their attorneys are ever changing and developing.
As a member of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, I have access to helpful information on these topics in the form of NAELA brochures which I am happy to share with readers. Just drop me an email!
On the more philosophical and artistic side, take a look at this ancient mosaic recently uncovered in Turkey which depicts a skeleton and reads “be cheerful and live your life.” A timeless message to be sure – to be grateful to be alive and to have the opportunity to live one’s own life, and not that of another.
A couple weeks back, I posted an update on the proposed End of Life Options Act, a bill in the Colorado legislature which has since died (presumably of natural causes). There is concern that some version of the bill will make it onto a ballot to become law by other means. For this reason, today’s post will go into a bit more detail about the concerns I raised about the implications of having no reporting requirements for such a law and concerns I have with regard to the safety of some vulnerable elders.
Colorado’s mandatory elder abuse reporting statute defines an at-risk adult as “any person who is seventy years of age or older or any person who is eighteen years of age or older and is a person with a disability.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-6.5.102(2). The only reputable (US Census based) internet fact I ran across about this population was for persons 65 and up, who in July 2014, were estimated to be 12.7% of the population of Colorado.
From a civil rights perspective, aspects of elder abuse prevention statutes can often seem paternalistic. Much of the research that could be done on the subject is problematic because of ethical and methodological problems. Collecting information about elder abuse may publicly expose cognitive, physical, mental and social vulnerabilities and the collection of such information could have negative implications in the form of legal, financial or social consequences for both the elders and caregivers and others who might participate as part of a study. I mention this because the vast majority of elder adults are competent and retain capacity, at least in the eyes of the law. The implication of these observations is that we really don’t have solid numbers about how many perpetrators and victims we are talking about. As an elder law attorney, I can say that it is extremely difficult for an elder parent to call me (or adult protective services) to report abuse or exploitation being perpetrated by an adult child or family member of the elder. Suffice it to say we don’t really know, and may never have a very firm handle on how many elders are affected as victims of exploitation and abuse.
When you couple this with the lack of any reporting requirement for a physician assisted death law, it would not be possible to track the numbers of vulnerable elders who might fall prey to an abuser’s or exploiter’s plan to hasten someone’s demise so that they might inherit something from the elder. Enter the slayer statute. Here’s an article about “disincentivizing” elder abuse. Keep in mind that elder abuse statutes have criminal penalties. There are of course distinguished from civil remedies, which can provide other types of relief.
If you’ve never heard of a slayer statute, you’re not alone! It’s both obscure and ancient. Before there were any state “slayer statutes” there was the common law slayer rule. Its origin hearkens back to the first known remedial law code in human history: the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of the Babylonian king was inscribed on a stone pillar (called a stele) and installed in a public place. It was a combination of legal principles and history. Most of us are familiar with the axiom “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” as some precept of retributive law in the form of revenge as recompense for personal harm, but it is much more likely the expression has been badly misinterpreted and taken out of context. It is probably much more closely aligned with other commentary in the code which describes the value of certain personal injuries in terms of repayment. In short, it was a code of remedial law – akin to modern day worker’s compensation and tort law.
The principle from Hammurabi’s code is that “a killer cannot profit from his wrong.” The common law rule, nullus commondum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can take advantage of his wrongdoing) forms the basis of the historical slayer rules and subsequent statutes, preventing slayers from inheriting from their victims.
Probably the most well-known case (from law school) to articulate a slayer rule is Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N.E. 188 (N.Y. 1889). In that case a grandfather had executed a will leaving small portions of his property to his children and the remainder to his grandson. The grandfather subsequently married and stated that he intended to change his will to include his wife. The unhappy grandson caused his grandfather’s death in an attempt to secure his portion of the estate. The court held that grandson was disqualified from inheriting because of his action and relied on the grounds of moral equity to articulate a slayer rule in American jurisprudence.
Forty-seven states have slayer statutes. Colorado is a Uniform Probate Code state, among many other states which have adopted that version of the slayer statutes. Colorado’s is codified at C.R.S §15-11-803 and contains both a criminal and civil provision for determining that a felonious killing has occurred such that a slayer/felonious killer is prevented from inheriting from the person whom they slew.
This post will be continued next week. . .
After my recent post about this bill in the legislature entitled the Colorado End-of-Life Options act, I was contacted by someone who was concerned that I had omitted some very important information about the proposed legislation. I am posting further on this topic to provide more detail about the legislation and also to express my concern, as an elder law and probate attorney, about the particular implications of those important details – which I missed the first time around.
The bill contains no requirements regarding documentation and reporting of any of the processes described in the bill.
This is a big departure from the 2015 version of the bill – which contained provisions concerning reporting and documentation for the public health record (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) or the patient’s medical record.
Other states with similar legislation have documentation, reporting and review requirements. This is for several good reasons, but the two with which I am concerned – protecting a vulnerable population of elders at risk of abuse safe from potential coercion and ensuring their consent to end their lives is one with consent given which is sufficiently sound and documented. This reporting is to keep track of the many important details surrounding physician assisted death (PAD). Without reporting requirements, there will be no way to know how the state’s PAD is working or not working.
Elders and vulnerable elders (as defined in Colorado’s mandatory reporting of elder abuse or exploitation law) have not generally been at the forefront of the PAD movement. However, much of our death-denying and youth-glorifying culture is obsessed with the fear of losing one’s autonomy, losing control over one’s choice – and these fears factor substantially in the PAD debate. As a civil rights issue, PAD focuses on self-determination and autonomy to allow for an individual’s decision to end one’s life with PAD.
My concern is that a population of elders could be coerced and exploited into ending a life prematurely and without documentation and reporting requirements for PAD, there would be no information to document many important details surrounding a patient’s death with PAD. I believe this situation could be used by someone looking to benefit themselves by a terminally ill elder’s PAD. So what am I talking about . . . really?
In Colorado, we have a “slayer statute,” codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-11-803. The statute generally prevents a slayer from profiting from their act of killing another.
Many exploiters of elders use tactics not unlike those of perpetrators of domestic violence. These can include: isolating an elder from their loved ones or community members so as to make the elder dependent on the abuser; controlling basic life activities like provision of adequate nutrition, sleep deprivation or medication mismanagement; and devaluation of the elder’s dignity and personhood through words and action.
The state of Washington, which has a physician assisted death law as a result of a ballot initiative, also has a “slayer and abuser” statute, which is a rather unique combination. The Washington slayer statute was amended to extend the slayer statute’s application to prevent financial abusers of vulnerable adults from acquiring property or any benefit from their victim’s estate. This amendment was done during the pendency of a will/living trust challenge proceeding brought by the adult children of an elder against the elder parent’s surviving spouse, a second wife fifty years the decedent’s junior. Here is the Washington Supreme Court’s en banc decision in In re: the Estate of James W. Haviland, which concerns this tragic exploitation.
The linking of slayer statutes and elder abuse laws is a relatively recent development. One aspect of the link is the massive transfer of inherited wealth that has been underway for several years now. The sad fact is, some folks simply don’t want to wait for the uncertain date when someone dies to inherit from the person. In my line of work, these folks are referred to as “impatient heirs.” The vast majority will not resort to violence to accomplish their goals, but it can be difficult to determine this in many circumstances. Here’s a link to an abstract of a recent article on Expanding Slayer Statutes to Elder Abuse in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Why am I combining these two issues – the Slayer Statute as it relates to elder abuse and the lack of documentation and reporting requirements in the 2016 bill?
I don’t think it is too far of a stretch that, if this “End of Life Options” bill were to become law and not provide for ANY record-keeping, documentation for either the individual’s medical record or for the public health record, that this lack of information and reporting could provide a potential avenue for death-hastening abuse of an at-risk elder, who happens to be terminally ill and whose health status otherwise falls under the purview of this bill. The process described in the bill, devoid of any reporting requirements, opens up a vulnerable population to be exploited by an abuser such that the cause of death could be determined to have been at the terminally ill person’s own hand . . .
In short, I believe the Colorado bill’s lack of safeguards, which could otherwise serve to prevent coercion and consent, fall dangerously short as it relates to the population of elders. For more information about other states’ existing laws, take a look at the Colorado Health Institute’s piece from January 2016 on this topic.
Here’s a recent and well-reasoned Denver Post article on this topic that focuses on the bill’s lack of requirements for oversight, documentation or enforcement.
This debate is also happening in other parts of the US where similar bills have been introduced. Here’s a recent article about the assisted dying debate in Canada, where there is a new federal assisted dying law. I will close for now, but will likely be writing posts to update this very controversial topic.
This is the season for the annual Senior Law Days, co-sponsored by the Colorado Bar Association. There are a number of events taking place throughout the state, but this post is about the Jefferson County Senior Law Day this Saturday, June 13, 2015. Yours truly will be presenting once again on the topic of Financial Powers of Attorney and Conservatorships. My presentation is one of fourteen different topics on which presentations will be made in three different sessions beginning at 9:30 a.m. and finishing at 12:40 p.m.
This year’s Senior Law Day event is hosted by the Colorado Christian University located in Lakewood. Senior Law Day is a great way for elders, adult children, caregivers and others to get good information about common concerns with aging and preventing financial abuse as well as making important plans about end-of-life health care decisions. There are also a number of vendors who attend these events and several not-for-profits that assist elders. It’s an excellent way for the curious to get some basic information from reliable sources and learn about community resources for elders and their caregivers.
Some of the other topics for presentation include: “A Consumer’s Guide to Choosing Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities;” “Scams and Elder Abuse;” “Probate: Perspective From the Bench;” “Estate Planning Basics: Wills and Trusts;” and “Medicare Update.” Don’t forget that there are also “Ask an Elder Law Attorney” sessions available for questions folks have for the elder law attorneys who volunteer for these sessions.
If you are interested in attending a senior law day, but can’t attend this one, the annual Denver Senior Law Day will be held at the Denver Mart on October 17, 2015. If you’re interested in more information about these kinds of topics, you can check out the pdf version of the 2014 Senior Law Handbook published by the CBA here. Finally, don’t forget that there is an established “ask an elder law attorney” program at the Jefferson County Justice Center, in Golden, Colorado. That’s where I will be Friday morning! Get more information about this service here.
I recently received an invitation for an event at The Denver Hospice (at their corporate headquarters) and wanted to share it with the community. I have blogged previously about the importance of having a conversation about end of life wishes (and also the need for documents based on that conversation – like a health care power of attorney and advance directives) as well as The Conversation Project and so this cause is near and dear to me. I won’t be able to attend this event, but know it will be well facilitated by Laurel Okasaki-Cardos, community educator at the Life Quality Institute. If you are interested in participating, please email Laurel at lokasaki@lifequalityinstitute.org to get more information or RSVP. You can also call her at 303-398-6259.
In case you can’t attend the gathering at the Denver Hospice on the 6th, Laurel offers these interactive gatherings for groups of seven or more people – free of charge – if you are interested in organizing one for your community. Be sure to get in touch with her if you want more information.
Last week I attended the quarterly meeting of the Colorado Guardianship Association, of which I am a member. The CGA is a nonprofit that is a multidisciplinary group of attorneys, professional fiduciaries (like the folks who serve as trustee, agent under a financial power of attorney, agent under medical power of attorney, etc.), professional guardians, as well as others involved in the provision of services for elders and disabled adults. We have had some good programs and attorneys receive continuing legal education credit for attending, in addition to meeting with other professional with whom we have much in common and where we can discuss best practices.
The presentation was given by the Hon. C. Jean Stewart, the retired judge of the Denver Probate Court and the current president of the National College of Probate Judges. It was a great topic (even if it might sound technical) and Judge Stewart is an excellent presenter.
Since I am rather fond of Rudyard Kipling’s “six serving men” (from The Elephant’s Child, one of the Just So Stories) – also sometimes referred to as the “five W’s” (one man short obviously) I will use them to illustrate the components of the statute. The first serving man is “what.” In case you’re wondering, the cite for the statute is Colo. Rev. Stat. §15-10-601. Part six is titled Compensation and Cost Recovery.
Second, I’ll look at “where” – this is in the Colorado probate code, and so it concerns fiduciaries (the “who”) serving in proceedings in probate court including estates of decedents, trusts, protected persons, principals (makers of powers of attorney) and others under the Colorado Probate Code (CPC). So that is where we consider the context for this act among the components of what might be identified as “who:” it concerns an “estate” (whether a decedent’s estate, trust, or another person whose affairs are subject to the CPC); in which a “fiduciary” is the recognized actor on behalf of the entity or person (estate); and finally, section 601 goes on to define by way of illustration what a “governing instrument” for purposes of this section might be. These definitions really reflect both the who and the where – in what type of proceeding is the fiduciary acting.
So, to cut to the chase, this statute essentially addresses HOW fiduciaries are paid. Helpful to note here is the new JDF form for use in trusts & estates filings in the Colorado Judicial system which pertains to the application for probate, like the JDF 910 for example, which now has two separate inquiries regarding compensation – one for compensation of the personal representative and for the counsel of the personal representative.
Next up is the “why” – which was one of the most important messages of Judge Stewart’s presentation. The reason why attorneys and fiduciaries need to be familiar with this statute: to establish and maintain transparency so people know how much things are going to costs; and to give a baseline for how to determine reasonableness. Section 603 of the statute addresses quite a few relevant factors in determining the reasonableness of compensation and costs charged to or paid by an estate. What struck me about the message regarding transparency was that it could ease many of the concerns around our system of simplified probate in which sometimes persons take advantage of the lack of judicial supervision. In fact, some of us who represent fiduciaries in our practice (say for example, a client who is personal representative of an estate) include language in our engagement letters regarding fiduciary malfeasance and its consequences on our continued representation.
Finally, I’ll wrap up with the last serving man here – “when.” This involves among other things a consideration of when a family member fiduciary can expect to be paid for his or her work for an estate. This concerns the concept of providing a benefit to the estate – which is an idea that applies to both professional and nonprofessional (family member) fiduciaries. What I found particularly interesting here was our presenter’s assumption that family member fiduciaries are presumed to be performing their work as fiduciaries for the love and affection of/for the family member. This had interesting implications for several of us as there seems to be a shifting consensus regarding the payment of family members for their work.
What I particularly enjoyed about the presentation was that it pointed out there are no easy answers with this statute and that if we are to assess the value of another person’s work we need to consider the previously mentioned transparency along with the importance of clarifying expectations by having a conversation or setting forth processes which will be followed.
You’re only old once or. . . mindful aging as spiritual practice?!
In case you’re wondering, yes, I have a copy of the Dr. Seuss book “You’re Only Old Once!” in my office waiting room. What, you say your kids have never read that one to you? In case you’re wondering, yes Dr. S was OLD when he wrote it, and it was released in 1986 on Mr. Geisel’s 82nd birthday. It is a fanciful “day in the life” of an elder American. I wouldn’t say it has the same level of incisive social commentary as my Dr. S. faves including The Sneetches (about the stupidity of racial discrimination), The Zax (about the wisdom of integrative negotiation) or The Butter Battle Book (about the craziness of MAD – mutually assured destruction, that Cold War relic we somehow managed to survive). But that might just be because I haven’t read this book to my kids at least fifty times. (Maybe they can read it to me in a couple more years, if I haven’t misplaced it by then.) My other Seuss favorites are numerous – oh, I don’t have the space for a discussion of Yertle the Turtle or Horton Hears a Who. Maybe in another blog post though.
Attention Surplus Disorder (ASD) – sometimes mistaken for OCD and often referred to as “nervous Nellie” syndrome, this occurs when a person’s quality of life is threatened when their sleep is interrupted by the looming prospect of overdue library books, and their vision is impaired by hyperfocus on the physical meaning of the dark circles under the eyes or formation of crow’s feet on the face of their partner.
De-mentation – this condition is practically reaching epic proportions as nearly all Americans have “smart phones” which means that as our phones become progressively smarter with the latest technology, we, the operators of our smart phones, get dumber all the time. For example, when was the last time you actually remembered someone’s mobile phone number (without having to look it up on your smart phone)????
Displasia – pronounced “dis-place-yeah.” This behavior is characteristic of the opposing spectrum of the obsessive-compulsive disorder, basically it is evidenced by a person spending exponentially more than the average forty-five minutes per day looking for a particular paper on their desk or some place in their office.
Paranoid Cybercosis — is a 20th century and present day phenomenon, the disorder based on a vaguely formed conspiracy theory that yes, just like in all the great sci-fi movies of the last millennium, the machines are out to get us.
Stendhal syndrome (I remember him from my French class in college) is a psychosomatic illness that can strike when a person is exposed to a large amount of beautiful things or breathtaking scenery in a short time. If we have spent our entire lives merely surviving and tolerating our existence, beauty can be quite upsetting!
Trichotillomania – this is exceedingly rare in those of us of a certain age, because as my grandmother once explained to me, when you get old, there isn’t as great a need to shave anymore. This one is the urge to pull one’s hair out, basically from any area of the body that still manages to grow hair.
So, you’re maybe wondering . . . what’s this link between humor and spirituality? I haven’t read this book, and I didn’t know the Jesuits had a lock on this, but in 1989 James Martin, SJ, published Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor and Laughter Are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life. On a similar note, here’s a link to a PBS Frontline interview with Rev. Jennifer Brower, a Unitarian minister. Her premise is that the aging process affects spiritual life as a result of the developmental process of aging. I discovered there is even a Journal of Religion, Spirituality and Aging! Who knew?
So let’s hear it for April Fool’s Day and the glorious and pervasive myth of the fool, Loki, trickster, clown, and all those other wise fool names, mythological and archetypal. Here’s to Coyote’s medicine, may it lighten our hearts, increase our wisdom and bring us clarity of sight.
Many people have heard about the “small estate affidavit” but in fact it’s not an estate at all. It’s an affidavit that can be completed by a successor of the decedent in order to collect probate assets which do not exceed $64,000. (This is the 2014 year of death amount.) A successor can be a surviving spouse, a child or other family member, and also a personal representative named in a will. Besides the limitations on the amount which can be collected using an affidavit, it cannot be used if there is real property involved. The Colorado State Judicial website has the form and instructions here. You can’t use an affidavit and also have an open probate for a decedent. The Colorado probate code sections applicable to the affidavit are found at Colo. Rev. Stat. 15-12-1201 and 1202. An affidavit can be used to simplify the collection of probate assets, or those assets titled solely in the name of the decedent. Ten days must pass before the affidavit can be signed. There are good public policy reasons for this waiting period. The time period for an application for informal probate with a will, however, is only five days after the decedent’s death.
Okay, I mentioned “probate” property . . . what’s the difference between probate and nonprobate property? In a nutshell, nonprobate property passes automatically to a survivor by the way the asset is titled (as in joint tenancy) or if it is an asset that has a beneficiary designation. Probate property, very broadly, is property that was held by the decedent that didn’t pass to a survivor via nonprobate means (or those means failed) or was titled solely in the decedent’s name. There are many assets now that are commonly held that are nonprobate assets like IRA accounts, real property held in joint tenancy, and so on. The lines that distinguish between probate and nonprobate property or assets can change or be modified by the asset’s owner – either by action or inaction. When people come in to talk to me about estate planning and we draft a will, it is after a process of identifying assets and categorizing them as probate (which typically pass via a will) or nonprobate.
So back to the affidavit . . . the person making the affidavit, known as an affiant, is treated much like a personal representative in their presentation of the affidavit to third parties. The personal representative is the person who is in charge of administering a decedent’s probate estate. The challenge here is that the statutory language is silent on how someone goes about recovering property that was improperly distributed by an affiant.
Sometimes it is best, given all the circumstances at play, that an estate not be opened for a decedent. The affidavit to collect assets can be very helpful in this regard. But remember that the Colorado DMV prefers that you use their form available here and not the one in the state judicial website if a car is involved in these circumstances.
So, what about your personal property,- your stuff – in the probate context when there is a will and an estate opened? Colorado law, like that of many other states, provides something called a “memorandum disposition of tangible personal property.” Okay, so what’s the difference between tangible and intangible personal property? When you think tangible, think stuff – like china cabinet contents, mementos that hold emotional value (many people tend to fixate on the financial value of the item. Intangibles are things like digital assets, and those are a bit more complicated. The nice thing about the memorandum disposition is that is a document that can be easily changed and updated and can be incorporated by a person’s will be reference to it. This allows for flexibility in deciding to whom your personal property will be given as what you have, get rid of, and acquire changes over time.
In addition to the memorandum disposition, there are creative ways in a will to divide up personal property. Personal property can of course be mentioned specifically in a will as a devise of a particular thing to a particular person, and it can be given as a gift to a class of people like children or grandchildren, and there are many other ways of dividing the property if a division isn’t made prior to the person’s death. These could include a private or a family auction, depending on the nature of the property and considering the emotional value of the items in relation to the financial value. Many people writing an estate plan focus on the financial value of the property when it is more often the emotional value that is most dear to the surviving loved ones. Just another reason for a person to share the stories that go with those mementos, so that the stories get handed down along with the particular item.
Making plans for the disposition of your personal property can make a personal representative’s and your surviving family members lives much easier. Don’t forget to include those plans as part of a comprehensive estate plan.

References: v. 
 §18
 v. 
 §15
 § 15
 §15