CO Code § 38-38-105 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal|Article 38 - Foreclosure Sales|Part 1 - Foreclosure Sale|§ 38-38-105. Court Order Authorizing Sale Mandatory - Notice of Hearing for Residential Properties - Definition

  Repealed.      shall be invalid.    The public trustee shall postpone the sale, unless the holder or the attorney for the holder causes a copy of the order to be provided to the public trustee no later than 12 noon on the second business day prior to the date of sale. A sale held in violation of this paragraph (b) shall not be invalid if an order that complied with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) was entered.         Not less than fourteen days before the date set for the hearing pursuant to rule 120 or other rule of the Colorado rules of civil procedure, the holder or the attorney for the holder seeking an order authorizing sale under this section for a residential property shall cause a notice of hearing as described in rule 120 (b) of the Colorado rules of civil procedure to be posted in a conspicuous place on the property that is the subject of the sale. If possible, the notice shall be posted on the front door of the residence, but if access to the door is not possible or is restricted, the notice shall be posted at an alternative conspicuous location, such as a gate or similar impediment. If a person at the residence is impeding posting at the residence at the time of the attempted posting, the notice may be handed to that person to satisfy this posting requirement. The notice required by this subsection (3) is sufficient if it complies with the requirements of this section without regard to any requirements for service of process in a civil action required by court rule.    For servicers who are not exempt pursuant to section (3) or 38-38-103.2 (4), the notice must contain or be accompanied by a conspicuous statement, substantially as follows, together with contact information for both the Colorado attorney general's office and the CFPB: If you believe that the lender or servicer of this mortgage has violated the requirements for a single point of contact in section 38-38-103.1, Colorado Revised Statutes, or the prohibition on dual tracking in section 38-38-103.2, Colorado Revised Statutes, you may file a complaint with the Colorado attorney general, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or both, at ___________ [insert contact information for both]. The filing of a complaint will not stop the foreclosure process.       As used in this section, “residential property” means any real property upon which a dwelling, as defined in section 5-1-301 (18), C.R.S., is constructed and occupied.     History. Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 1657, § 2, effective October 1. L. 2006: Entire section amended, p. 1452, § 11, effective July 1. L. 2007: Entire section amended, p. 1834, § 9, effective June 1. L. 2009: (2) amended,(HB 09-1207), ch. 164, p. 711, § 8, effective September 1. L. 2010: (3) added,(HB 10-1240), ch. 200, p. 872, § 2, effective May 5. L. 2012: (3) amended and (4) added,(SB 12-030), ch. 96, p. 318, § 7, effective September 1. L. 2014: (3) amended,(HB 14-1295), ch. 157, p. 550, § 5, effective January 1, 2015.    Editor's note:    This section is similar to former § 38-37-140 (1), as it existed prior to 1990.    Subsection (1)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (1), effective January 1, 2008. (SeeL. 2007, p. 1834.)     Cross references:   For the nature and effect of mortgages, see § 38-35-117 .   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “An Analysis of the Effect of S.B. 123 on Foreclosures”, see 17 Colo. Law. 845 (1988). For article, “Rule 120: Relocation of the Meaningful Hearing”, see 20 Colo. Law. 495 (1991).   Annotator's note. Since § 38-38-105 is similar to § 38-37-140 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of article 37 and this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   Applied in Moreland v. Marwich, Ltd., 665 P.2d 613 (Colo. 1983); Kirschner v. Sanchez, 661 P.2d 1161 (Colo. 1983).