CO Code § 15-12-806 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 15 - Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries|Article 12 - Probate of Wills and Administration|Part 8 - Creditors' Claims|§ 15-12-806. Allowance of Claims

  The personal representative may mail a notice to any claimant stating that the claim has been disallowed. If the personal representative fails to mail notice to a claimant of action on his or her claim within sixty-three days after the time for original presentation of the claim has expired, the claim shall be deemed to be allowed. After any claim has been deemed to be allowed or disallowed, the personal representative may change the status of the allowance or disallowance of the claim by notice to the claimant; except that the personal representative may not change a disallowance of a claim after the time for the claimant to file a petition for allowance or to commence a proceeding on the claim has run and the claim has been barred. Every claim that is disallowed in whole or in part by the personal representative is barred so far as not allowed unless the claimant files a petition for allowance in the court or commences a proceeding against the personal representative not later than sixty-three days after the mailing of the notice of disallowance or partial allowance if the notice warns the claimant of the impending bar.    Upon the petition of the personal representative or of a claimant in a proceeding for the purpose, the court may allow in whole or in part any claim or claims presented to the personal representative or filed with the clerk of the court in due time and not barred by subsection (1) of this section. Notice in this proceeding shall be given to the claimant, the personal representative, and those other persons interested in the estate as the court may direct by order entered at the time the proceeding is commenced.    A judgment in a proceeding in another court against a personal representative to enforce a claim against a decedent's estate is an allowance of the claim.    Unless otherwise provided in any judgment in another court entered against the personal representative, allowed claims bear interest at the legal rate for the period commencing sixty-three days after the time for original presentation of the claim has expired unless based on a contract making a provision for interest, in which case they bear interest in accordance with that provision.     History. Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1594, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 153-3-806. L. 79: (1) amended, p. 650, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2006: (1) amended, p. 376, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2012: (1) and (4) amended,(SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 838, § 45, effective July 1. History. Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1594, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 153-3-806. L. 79: (1) amended, p. 650, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2006: (1) amended, p. 376, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2012: (1) and (4) amended,(SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 838, § 45, effective July 1.    ANNOTATION   Failure of personal representative to provide notice of 60-day time limitation did not render the disallowance defective. Wishbone, Inc., v. Eppinger, 829 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1991), overruled in In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Failure to provide notice concerning the 60-day time bar has no effect on the substance or the intended effect of the notice of disallowance, it only relieves the plaintiff of the requirement to file their claim within 60 days. Wishbone, Inc., v. Eppinger, 829 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1991), overruled in In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Nor does such failure remove a claim from the requirements of the probate code or general statutes of limitation. Wishbone, Inc., v. Eppinger, 829 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1991), overruled in In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   A nonclaim statute is not a statute of limitations and to employ such a construction would frustrate the statutory goal underlying the distribution of estates. Wishbone, Inc., v. Eppinger, 829 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1991), overruled in In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Since this nonclaim statute is self-executing, any lack of prior notice to plaintiffs of its operation does not constitute a deprivation of due process. Wishbone, Inc., v. Eppinger, 829 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1991), overruled in In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   The filing of a petition to allow a claim under subsection (1) is not governed by the time limit in § 15-12-804 (2) . In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Claim allowed by failure to act not barred by failure to act. A claim against an estate which is allowed by the personal representative's failure to act is not barred by the limitation period of this section. In re Estate of Hamilton v. Egan, 633 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1981).   A personal representative may change a previous allowance of a claim to a disallowance even if the allowance resulted from the failure of the personal representative to deny the claim within 60 days after the time for original presentation of the claim. Claimant may properly contest such disallowance by petition to the court, and an adjudication of the claim is proper. Matter of Estate of Roddy, 784 P.2d 841 (Colo. App. 1989).   Nonclaim statute requires a claimant to commence an action within the time permitted for presentation of a claim, even though the personal representative has not yet allowed or disallowed a claim. Sec. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Estate of Kite, 857 P.2d 430 (Colo. App. 1992), overruled in In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   The court has broad discretion in determining whether a contingent claim should be allowed, the amount of time to give a claimant to secure a judgment on the claim, and the amount of assets to be held in reserve for the contingency. Powers Blvd. Assoc. Ltd. v. Estate of Reel, 839 P.2d 516 (Colo. App. 1992).   When contingent claims force the court to hold open the administration of an estate, the court must balance the heirs' interests in the prompt, orderly, and efficient administration of the estate against the protection of contingent claims being pursued against the estate in other courts. Powers Blvd. Assoc. Ltd. v. Estate of Reel, 839 P.2d 516 (Colo. App. 1992).   Personal representative cannot defeat rights of creditor by failing timely to allow or disallow claims. In re Estate of Hall, 936 P.2d 592 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Statutes must be read together. A claimant who has presented a claim pursuant to § 15-12-804(1) rather than commencing a civil proceeding under § 15-12-804(2) has opted for consideration of the claim on its merits by the personal representative. If, thereafter, a claim initially deemed allowed is purportedly disallowed or not paid by the personal representative, the claimant is entitled to petition the court for allowance and payment of the claim under this section or § 15-12-807 , even though such petition is brought more than 60 days after the deadline for presenting a claim pursuant to § 15-12-803 . In re Estate of Hall, 936 P.2d 592 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Claimant may not assert surprise where the record shows that her opponent's defense arises from the very evidence on which claimant's case is based. Pierce v. Erzen, 672 P.2d 1023 (Colo. App. 1983).   The time limit in subsection (2) does not govern the filing of a petition to allow a claim under § 15-12-806 (1) . In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1997).   Applied in In re Estate of Daigle, 634 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1981).