Skip to main content
CourtGPT logoCourtGPT
Directory
Law
For Attorneys
Blog
AppointmentsSign InSign Up
Section 38-8-111 - Supplementary provisions — Colorado Law | CourtGPT
  1. Home/
  2. Laws/
  3. Colorado/
  4. Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal Eminent Domain (§§ 38-1-101 — 38-7.5-107)/
  5. Frauds Statute of Frauds/
  6. Article 8 - Fraudulent Transfers Law Reviews: for Article, "Representing the Debtor: Counsel Beware", See 23 Colo. Law. 539 (1994)/
  7. Section 38-8-111 - Supplementary provisions
Colorado Legal Code

Section 38-8-111 - Supplementary provisions

Ask AI about this
Unless displaced by the provisions of this article, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause, supplement the provisions of this article.L. 91: Entire article added, p. 1689, § 1, effective July 1.Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: This section was numbered as section 10 in the uniform act.OFFICIAL COMMENTThis section is derived from § 11 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and § 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The section adds a reference to 'laches' in recognition of the particular appropriateness of the application of this equitable doctrine to an untimely action to avoid a fraudulent transfer. See Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Butler, 496 F.2d 806, 808 (6th Cir. 1974) (action to avoid transfers to debtor's wife when debtor was engaged in speculative business held to be barred by laches or applicable statutes of limitations); Cooch v. Grier, 30 Del.Ch. 255, 265-66, 59 A.2d 282, 287-88 (1948) (action under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act held barred by laches when the

by laches or applicable statutes of limitations); Cooch v. Grier, 30 Del.Ch. 255, 265-66, 59 A.2d 282, 287-88 (1948) (action under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act held barred by laches when the creditor was chargeable with inexcusable delay and the defendant was prejudiced by the delay).