CO Code § 15-2.5-205 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 15 - Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries|Article 2.5 - Uniform Powers of Appointment Act|Part 2 - Creation, Revocation, and Amendment of Power of Appointment|§ 15-2.5-205. Rules of Classification - Definitions

  In this section, “adverse party” means a person with a substantial beneficial interest in property, which interest would be affected adversely by a powerholder's exercise or nonexercise of a power of appointment in favor of the powerholder, the powerholder's estate, a creditor of the powerholder, or a creditor of the powerholder's estate.    If a powerholder may exercise a power of appointment only with the consent or joinder of an adverse party, the power is nongeneral.    If the permissible appointees of a power of appointment are not defined and limited, the power is exclusionary.     History. Source: L. 2014: Entire article added,(HB 14-1353), ch. 209, p. 775, § 1, effective July 1, 2015.    OFFICIAL COMMENT   Subsection (2) states a well-accepted and mandatory exception to the presumption of unlimited authority articulated in Section 203. If a power of appointment can be exercised only with the consent or joinder of an adverse party, the power is not a general power. An adverse party is an individual who has a substantial beneficial interest in the trust or other property arrangement that would be adversely affected by the exercise or nonexercise of the power in favor of the powerholder, the powerholder's estate, or the creditors of either. In this context, the word “substantial” is not subject to precise definition but must be determined in light of all the facts and circumstances. Consider the following examples.   D transferred property in trust, directing the trustee “to pay the income to D's son S for life, remainder in corpus to such person or persons as S, with the joinder of X, shall appoint; in default of appointment, remainder to X.” S's power is not a general power because X meets the definition of an adverse party.  Example 1.  Same facts as Example 1, except that S's power is exercisable with the joinder of Y rather than with the joinder of X. Y has no property interest that could be adversely affected by the exercise of the power. Because Y is not an adverse party, S's power is general.  Example 2.  Whether the party whose consent or joinder is required is adverse or not is determined at the time in question. Consider the following example.   . Same facts as Example 2, except that, one month after D's creation of the trust, X transfers the remainder interest to Y. Before the transfer, Y is not an adverse party and S's power is general. After the transfer, Y is an adverse party and S's power is nongeneral.  Example 3  Subsection (3) also states a longstanding mandatory rule. Only a power of appointment whose permissible appointees are defined and limited can be nonexclusionary. “Defined and limited” in this context is a well-accepted term of art. For elaboration and examples, see Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 17.5, Comment c. In general, permissible appointees are “defined and limited” if they are defined and limited to a reasonable number. Typically, permissible appointees who are defined and limited are described in class-gift terms: a single- generation class such as “children,” “grandchildren,” “brothers and sisters,” or “nieces and nephews,” or a multiple-generation class such as “issue” or “descendants” or “heirs.” Permissible appointees need not be described in class-gift terms to be defined and limited, however. The permissible appointees are also defined and limited if one or more permissible appointees are designated by name or otherwise individually identified.   If the permissible appointees are not defined and limited, the power is exclusionary irrespective of the donor's intent. A power exercisable, for example, in favor of “such person or persons other than the powerholder, the powerholder's estate, the creditors of the powerholder, and the creditors of the powerholder's estate” is an exclusionary power. An attempt by the donor to require the powerholder to appoint at least $X to each permissible appointee of the power is ineffective, because the permissible appointees of the power are so numerous that it would be administratively impossible to carry out the donor's expressed intent. The donor's expressed restriction is disregarded, and the powerholder may exclude any one or more of the permissible appointees in exercising the power.   In contrast, a power to appoint only to the powerholder's creditors or to the creditors of the powerholder's estate is a power in favor of a defined and limited class. Such a power could be nonexclusionary if, for example, the terms of the instrument creating the power provide that the power is a power to appoint “to such of the powerholder's estate creditors as the powerholder shall by will appoint, but if the powerholder exercises the power, the powerholder must appoint $X to a designated estate creditor or must appoint in full satisfaction of the powerholder's debt to a designated estate creditor.”   If a power is determined to be nonexclusionary, it is to be inferred that the donor intends to require an appointment to confer a reasonable benefit upon each mandatory appointee. An appointment under which a mandatory appointee receives nothing, or only a nominal sum, violates this requirement and is forbidden. This doctrine is known as the doctrine forbidding illusory appointments. For elaboration, see Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 17.5, Comment j.   The terms of the instrument creating a power of appointment sometimes provide that no appointee shall receive any share in default of appointment unless the appointee consents to allow the amount of the appointment to be taken into account in calculating the fund to be distributed in default of appointment. This “hotchpot” language is used to minimize unintended inequalities of distribution among permissible appointees. Such a clause does not make the power nonexclusionary, because the terms do not prevent the powerholder from making an appointment that excludes a permissible appointee. See Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 17.5, Comment k.   The rules of this section are consistent with, and this Comment draws on, Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers §§ 17.3 to 17.5 and the accompanying Introductory Note and Commentary.