CO Code § 38-8-108 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal|Article 8 - Fraudulent Transfers|§ 38-8-108. Remedies of Creditors

  In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation under this article, a creditor, subject to the limitations in section 38-8-109, may obtain:   Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim;    An attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Colorado rules of civil procedure;    With respect to a transfer made or obligation incurred that is fraudulent under section 38-8-105 (1)(a), a judgment for one and one-half the value of the asset transferred or for one and one-half the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, whichever is less, together with the creditor's actual costs; except that any judgment entered against a person under this paragraph (c) is in lieu of, not in addition to, a judgment against the same person under section (2). No judgment may be entered pursuant to this paragraph (c) against a person other than the debtor unless that person also acts with wrongful intent as defined in section 38-8-105 (1)(a); otherwise, judgment for money damages against a person other than the debtor may be entered only as provided in section 38-8-109. No judgment may be entered under this paragraph (c) unless a court of competent jurisdiction enters or has entered a judgment or order establishing the validity of the creditor's claim against the debtor.   An injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property;    Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee; or    Any other relief the circumstances may require.              (d) Subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure:   (2) If a creditor has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor, the creditor, if the court so orders, may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds.   History. Source: L. 91: Entire article added, p. 1687, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2014: (1) amended,(HB 14-1302), ch. 143, p. 489, § 1, effective May 2.    OFFICIAL COMMENT    This section is derived from §§ 9 and 10 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Section 9 of that Act specified the remedies of creditors whose claims have matured, and § 10 enumerated the remedies available to creditors whose claims have not matured. A creditor holding an unmatured claim may be denied the right to receive payment for the proceeds of a sale on execution until his claim has matured, but the proceeds may be deposited in court or in an interest-bearing account pending the maturity of the creditor's claim. The remedies specified in this section are not exclusive.    The availability of an attachment or other provisional remedy has been restricted by amendments of statutes and rules of procedure to reflect views of the Supreme Court expressed in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337 (1969), and its progeny. This judicial development and the procedural changes that followed in its wake do not preclude resort to attachment by a creditor in seeking avoidance of a fraudulent transfer or obligation. See, e.g., Britton v. Howard Sav. Bank, 727 F.2d 315, 317-20 (3d Cir. 1984); Computer Sciences Corp. v. Sci-Tek Inc., 367 A.2d 658, 661 (Del. Super. 1976); Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v. Fontana, 54 A.D.2d 548, 387 N.Y.S. 2d 115 (1st Dep't 1976). Section 7(a)(2) (section 38-8-108 (1)(b) in C.R.S.) continues the authorization for the use of attachment contained in § 9(b) of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, or of a similar provisional remedy, when the state's procedure provides therefor, subject to the constraints imposed by the due process clauses of the United States and state constitutions.    Subsections (a) and (b) of § 10 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act authorized the court, in an action on a fraudulent transfer or obligation, to restrain the defendant from disposing of his property, to appoint a receiver to take charge of his property, or to make any order the circumstances may require. Section 10, however, applied only to a creditor whose claim was unmatured. There is no reason to restrict the availability of these remedies to such a creditor, and the courts have not so restricted them. See, e.g., Lipskey v. Voloshen, 155 Md. 139, 143-45, 141 Atl. 402, 404-05 (1928) (judgment creditor granted injunction against disposition of property by transferee, but appointment of receiver denied for lack of sufficient showing of need for such relief); Matthews v. Schusheim, 36 Misc. 2d 918, 922-23, 235 N.Y.S.2d 973, 976-77, 991-92 (Sup.Ct. 1962) (injunction and appointment of receiver granted to holder of claims for fraud, breach of contract, and alimony arrearages; whether creditor's claim was mature said to be immaterial); Oliphant v. Moore, 155 Tenn. 359, 362-63, 293 S.W. 541, 542 (1927) (tort creditor granted injunction restraining alleged tortfeasor's disposition of property).    As under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, a creditor is not required to obtain a judgment against the debtor-transferor or to have a matured claim in order to proceed under subsection (a) (subsection (1) in C.R.S.). See § 1(3) and (4) supra (section 38-8-102 (3) and (4) in C.R.S.); American Surety Co. v. Conner, 251 N.Y. 1, 166 N.E. 783, 65 A.L.R. 244 (1929); 1 G. Glenn, Fraudulent Conveyances and Preferences 129 (Rev.ed. 1940).    The provision in subsection (b) (subsection (2) in C.R.S.) for a creditor to levy execution on a fraudulently transferred asset continues the availability of a remedy provided in § 9(b) of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. See, e.g., Doland v. Burns Lbr. Co., 156 Minn. 238, 194 N.W. 636 (1923); Montana Ass'n of Credit Management v. Hergert, 181 Mont. 442, 449, 453, 593 P.2d 1059, 1063, 1065 (1979); Corbett v. Hunter, 292 Pa.Super. 123, 128, 436 A.2d 1036, 1038 (1981); see also American Surety Co. v. Conner, 251 N.Y. 1, 6, 166 N.E. 783, 784, 65 A.L.R. 244, 247 (1929) (“In such circumstances he [the creditor] might find it necessary to indemnify the sheriff and, when the seizure was erroneous, assumed the risk of error”); McLaughlin, Application of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 404, 441-42 (1933).    The remedies specified in § 7, like those enumerated in §§ 9 and 10 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, are cumulative. Lind v. O. N. Johnson Co., 204 Minn. 30, 40, 282 N.W. 661, 667, 119 A.L.R. 940 (1939) (Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act held not to impair or limit availability of the “old practice” of obtaining judgment and execution returned unsatisfied before proceeding in equity to set aside a transfer); Conemaugh Iron Works Co. v. Delano Coal Co., Inc., 298 Pa. 182, 186, 148 A. 94, 95 (1929) (Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act held to give an “additional optional remedy” and not to “deprive a creditor of the right, as formerly, to work out his remedy at law”); 1 G. Glenn, Fraudulent Conveyances and Preferences 120, 130, 150 (Rev.ed. 1940).     ANNOTATION   Section 38-8-109 (2) does not provide an additional remedy to creditors but instead limits the remedy provided under subsection (1)(a) of this section by limiting the creditor's recovery in an action to avoid a fraudulent transfer to the lesser of the adjusted value of the transferred asset or the amount of the creditor's claim. Because a bankruptcy trustee thus has the power to recover the same amount sought by the plaintiff creditor for the benefit of all creditors and because allowing individual creditors to file actions for recovery would interfere with the bankruptcy estate and the equitable distribution scheme dependent upon it, the plaintiff creditor lacked standing. Summers v. Perkins, 81 P.3d 1141 (Colo. App. 2003).