This provision applies only to personal actions. Folda Real Estate Co. v. Jacobsen, 75 Colo. 16, 223 P. 748 (1924).

This section applies to actions under section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act. An action under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from alleged violation of rule 10b-5(1) and (3) might, on certain facts, more accurately be deemed similar to an action "based upon implied or constructive fraud", for which subsection (1) provides a three-year statute of limitations. Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 228 F. Supp. 757 (D. Colo. 1964).

Either because violation is constructive fraud. Most acts violative of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act would be readily cognizable in Colorado as "constructive fraud", or indeed, as traditional common-law fraud. Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 228 F. Supp. 757 (D. Colo. 1964).

Or is subject to the residuary clause. Subsequent to this enactment the three-year residuary statute of limitations might arguably have applied to an action under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 228 F. Supp. 757 (D. Colo. 1964).

This provision applies to private suits under section 10 (b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act. There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to actions brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The limitations statute of the forum state in which the alleged prohibited acts occurred applies to a private suit for damages under section 10(b), the Colorado statute of limitation for fraud, which requires that suit be brought within three years after discovery of fraud by the aggrieved party, applies. deHaas v. Empire Petroleum Co., 435 F.2d 1223 (10th Cir. 1970).

Former § 13-80-108 applied to actions under section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act since there is no federal statute of limitations on these actions. Laymon v. McComb, 524 F. Supp. 1091 (D. Colo. 1981).

There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to provisions of sections 10(b) and 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933. Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1980).

Federal law may control tolling of limitations when state statute applicable. Though the limitations period for an action brought in federal district court based on claims arising under section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is supplied by the law of Colorado, the circumstances which will toll the running of the statute are matters of federal law. Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, 472 F. Supp. 402 (D. Colo. 1979), aff'd, 651 F.2d 687 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 895, 102 S. Ct. 392, 70 L. Ed.2d 209 (1981).

Federal law governs tolling of the statute. Although the limitation period is supplied by the forum state of Colorado, it is a matter of federal law as to the circumstances that will toll a state statute applied to private actions under the securities laws. Under the federal doctrine of tolling as applied to fraud actions where the party injured by the fraud remains in ignorance of it without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered, though there be no special circumstances or efforts on the part of the party committing the fraud to conceal it from the knowledge of the other party. deHaas v. Empire Petroleum Co., 435 F.2d 1223 (10th Cir. 1970).

Former § 13-80-108 applied to civil claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Victoria Oil Co. v. Lancaster Corp., 587 F. Supp. 429 (D. Colo. 1984).

Statute of limitations questions may be appropriately resolved by a F.R.C.P. 12 (b) motion. Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1980).

This provision is applicable to transfers of land obtained by undue influence. If a grantee obtains transfers of land by exerting undue influence over the grantor, and the transfers were due to no other cause, this section of the statute of limitations would apply. James v. James, 75 Colo. 164, 225 P. 208 (1924); Blizzard v. Penley, 186 F. Supp. 746 (D. Colo. 1960).

Action for damages for fraudulent conspiracy is barred after three years by this section. Pipe v. Smith, 5 Colo. 146 (1879); Farncomb v. City & County of Denver, 64 Colo. 13, 171 P. 66 (1917); Littlejohn v. Grand Int'l Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 92 Colo. 275, 20 P.2d 311 (1933).

An action to set aside a decree obtained without notice, which to the prejudice of the plaintiff substantially modifies and changes the rights of the parties as set forth in a former decree entered in an adjudication of priorities to the use of water, is not brought for the purpose of determining the priority of appropriation to water but is purely one for relief on the ground of fraud, and if any statute of limitation is applicable it is this provision. Peck Lateral Ditch Co. v. Pella Irrigating Ditch Co., 19 Colo. 222, 34 P. 988 (1893).

An action upon a promissory note to recover a personal judgment, and, incidentally, to foreclose a lien on shares of stock, although involving the sufficiency of the assignment of such stock, is not an action for relief on the ground of fraud and so barred by this section. Murto v. Lemon, 19 Colo. App. 314, 75 P. 160 (1904); Equitable Sec. Co. v. Johnson, 36 Colo. 377, 85 P. 840 (1906).

This provision applies to frauds perpetrated by those not bearing a fiduciary relation to the party defrauded. Morgan v. King, 27 Colo. 539, 63 P. 416 (1900).

This provision does not apply to an action to have the foreclosure of a trust deed set aside for fraud. Barlow v. Hitzler, 40 Colo. 109, 90 P. 90 (1907).

Real estate statutes of limitations are elsewhere. The subsequent passage of specific limitation statutes to real estate actions contained in § 38-41-101 et seq. seems conclusive that these sections do not, and never were intended to, apply as limitations upon actions of that kind. Munson v. Marks, 52 Colo. 553, 124 P. 187 (1912).

Thus where a plaintiff asked for a money judgment for damages resulting from fraud in a real estate transaction, it is held that this provision did not apply. Ahart v. Sutton, 79 Colo. 145, 244 P. 306 (1926).

This provision has no application to a bill to remove a cloud upon title. Elder v. Richmond Gold & Silver Mining Co., 58 F. 536 (8th Cir. 1893); Morgan v. King, 27 Colo. 539, 63 P. 416 (1900); Ballard v. Golob, 34 Colo. 417, 83 P. 376 (1905); Munson v. Marks, 52 Colo. 553, 124 P. 187 (1912); Munson v. Keim, 53 Colo. 576, 127 P. 1026 (1912).

Section possibly applicable to § 11-51-123. It is apparent that, under one or another of three statutes, a three-year statute of limitations was provided by Colorado law for civil actions arising out of § 11-51-123. Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, 472 F. Supp. 402 (D. Colo. 1979), aff'd, 651 F.2d 687 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 895, 102 S. Ct. 392, 70 L. Ed.2d 209 (1981).

Former § 13-80-108 inapplicable to breach of fiduciary duties. Former § 13-80-108 was not applicable to claims premised on breach of fiduciary duties, or constructive trust, or negligence. Morgan v. Dain Bosworth, 545 F. Supp. 953 (D. Colo. 1982); Elk River Assocs. v. Huskin, 691 P.2d 1148 (Colo. App. 1984).

Paragraph (c) applies to cases brought under the federal Commodity Exchange Act. Ebrahimi v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1988).

Neither § 13-80-102 (a) nor § 13-80-102 (g) applies to a claim brought under § 43 (a) of the federal Lanham Act. Instead, Colorado's three-year statute of limitations for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and deceit, paragraph (c) of this section, governs such claims. Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 85 F. Supp.2d 1001 (D. Colo. 2000).

Paragraph (c) applies to fraudulent conveyance actions, and the action accrues on the date that such fraud is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. In re Munoz, 111 Bankr. 928 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1990).

Paragraph (c) does not apply to motions for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(2). In re Adoption of P.H.A., 899 P.2d 345 (Colo. App. 1995).

Mere knowledge that product was defective is not knowledge which would enable plaintiff to discover fraud in connection with transaction. Balistreri Greenhouses v. Roper Corp., 767 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1988), cert. dismissed, 773 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1989).

Whether a claim is barred by the statute of limitations is normally a jury fact question, but if the complaint shows the action was brought after the statute of limitations period and the defendant has pled the statute of limitations, the plaintiff has the burden to show tolling of the statute of limitations. First Interstate Bank v. Berenbaum, 872 P.2d 1297 (Colo. App. 1993).

Discovery rule is applicable to wrongful death actions. Rauschenberger v. Radetsky, 745 P.2d 640 (Colo. 1987).

This section, and not the California statute of limitations for tort actions, through operation of the borrowing statute, § 13-80-110, applies to action filed by Colorado resident against a Colorado resident that resulted from an accident that took place in California, if the action is within the scope of the Colorado No Fault Act. Grulke v. Erickson, 920 P.2d 845 (Colo. App. 1995).

Law reviews. For article, "Conclusiveness of United States Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim Patents", see 43 Den. L. Ctr. J. 24 (1966).

Annotator's note. Since § 13-80-101 (1)(f) is similar to former § 13-80-114 as it existed prior to the 1986 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included with the annotations to this paragraph (f).

This provision applies only to personal actions. Folda Real Estate Co. v. Jacobsen, 75 Colo. 16, 223 P. 748 (1924).

This provision is applicable in a suit to enforce a trust, constructive or otherwise. Morgan v. King, 27 Colo. 539, 63 P. 416 (1900); James v. James, 75 Colo. 164, 225 P. 208 (1924); Vandewiele v. Vandewiele, 110 Colo. 556, 136 P.2d 523 (1943).

To suit against purchaser from trustee who conveyed in contravention of trust. One who purchases property from a trustee who conveys in contravention of his trust is a trustee by construction of law, and in no sense the trustee of an express trust. He holds in hostility to all the world, and whoever would assert the fiduciary character of his holding must bring his action within the limitation prescribed by this provision. Harding v. Burris, 52 Colo. 132, 119 P. 1063 (1911).

In suit to compel specific performance by trustees, this provision is applicable. Farris v. Wirt, 16 Colo. App. 1, 63 P. 946 (1901).

When the action is leased on an existing trust, this provision applies. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. America v. Smith, 101 Colo. 61, 70 P.2d 109 (1930).

For applicability to guardian's handling of a minor's estate, see Parsons v. Shackleford, 117 Colo. 545, 188 P.2d 437 (1948).

The existence of a fiduciary relationship between directors and stockholders makes this provision applicable. Hall v. Swan, 117 Colo. 349, 188 P.2d 437 (1947); Polk v. Hergert Land & Cattle Co., 5 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2000).

This provision applies to an action to foreclose a deed of trust. See Rowe v. Mulvane, 25 Colo. App. 502, 139 P. 1041 (1914).

Daughter's claim for breach of fiduciary duty alleging that she was rightful owner of winning lottery ticket taken by mother was proper under this provision but time-barred due to three-year statute of limitations. Curtis v. Counce, 32 P.3d 585 (Colo. App. 2001).

This provision does not apply to action to remove cloud of title. Manson v. Marks, 52 Colo. 553, 124 P. 187 (1912); Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Zehr, 54 Colo. 185, 129 P. 828 (1913).

Nor to an action against a stockholder for an assessment. Sweet v. Barnard, 66 Colo. 526, 182 P. 22 (1919).

This section does not apply in a case where partnership property is held in trust, the trust being partly discharged and never denied. Heuschkel v. Wagner, 78 Colo. 61, 239 P. 873 (1925).

The existence of a fiduciary relationship of a financial planner or investment adviser is a material fact that must be determined before the limitation on a breach of fiduciary duty can be determined. Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 916 P.2d 643 (Colo. App. 1996).

A claim for relief under (f) accrues when the breach is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Anderson v. Somatogen, Inc., 940 P.2d 1079 (Colo. App. 1996).

Because record established that plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by defendant over three years prior to filing her claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's claims. Colburn v. Kopit, 59 P.3d 295 (Colo. App. 2002).

Under paragraph (h), actions for replevin or for taking, detaining, or converting goods or chattels must be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. A cause of action for wrongful possession of personal property, goods, or chattels accrues at the time the wrongful possession is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence. In re Estate of Krotiuk, 12 P.3d 302 (Colo. App. 2000).

Trial court found that, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, claimant should have discovered alleged wrongful possession of rugs in 1992 when they were not returned with paintings. Because claimant did not file return of the rugs until 1997, two years after the statute of limitations had run, no error by trial court in granting partial summary judgment for estate as to that part of claim. In re Estate of Krotiuk, 12 P.3d 302 (Colo. App. 2000).

Reference in paragraph (h) to § 13-80-103.5 does not pertain to the phrase "all actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money due to the person bringing the action"; such language pertains to actions for breach of contract. Curtis v. Counce, 32 P.3d 585 (Colo. App. 2001).

Paragraph (j) applies to tort action brought by automobile accident victim against driver of another vehicle under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act. Applicability of paragraph (j) is not limited to actions brought by insured against insurer and the more specific language of paragraph (j) controls over the more general two-year statute of limitations. Cox v. Jones, 802 P.2d 1125 (Colo. App. 1990), aff'd, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992).

Plaintiff's claim was intertwined with the no fault act and subject to the three-year statute of limitations in subsection (1)(j), rather than the general two-year limitation, where plaintiff was obligated to pay and did pay benefits required under the act, the plaintiff's action was specifically authorized by the act, and the action was brought because the vehicle driven by the defendant was not insured as required under the act. Amco Ins. Co. v. Rockwell, 940 P.2d 1096 (Colo. App. 1997).

Statute of limitations for personal injury action arising under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act begins to run on the date that both the physical injury and its cause are known or should have been known by exercise of reasonable diligence, even though action may not be filed until it is reasonably expected that medical expenses will exceed $2,500. Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992).

Three-year statute of limitation applies to personal injury actions filed by an insured motorist against an insured motorist involved in an automobile accident and such statute of limitation begins to run from the date the plaintiff knows or should know of the physical injury and its cause. Lee v. Bettale, 829 P.2d 1301 (Colo. 1992).

Where actual payment was an element of plaintiff's claim under § 10-4-713 (2)(a), the plaintiff's right to bring a direct action for reimbursement did not accrue until the benefits were actually paid. The statute of limitations began to run on the date of payment and not on the date of the accident. Sakala v. Safeco Ins. Co., 833 P.2d 879 (Colo. App. 1992).

Paragraph (j) applies to tort actions brought against a sheriff's department arising from an alleged automobile accident involving a departmental vehicle. Because statutes of limitation are in derogation of a valid claim, the longer period of limitations in paragraph (j) should prevail over the shorter period in § 13-80-103 (1)(c) which could arguably be applicable in this situation. Reider v. Dawson, 856 P.2d 31 (Colo. App. 1992), aff'd, 872 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1994).

When a claim under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act involves a public entity the time limit for filing an action is governed by this section rather than § 13-80-102, the governmental immunity section. Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Voss, 890 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1995).

Law reviews. For article, "Statutes of Limitation in the Conflict of Laws Borrowing Statutes", see 32 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 287 (1960).

Annotator's note. Since § 13-80-101 (1)(k) is similar to former § 13-80-119 as it existed prior to the 1986 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included with the annotations to this paragraph (k).

This provision does not violate full faith and credit clause of constitution. The constitutional provision requiring full faith and credit to be given the judgments of other states is not violated by a statute imposing a reasonable period of limitation upon the bringing of suits on such judgments. A six-year period of limitation is not unreasonable. Kelly v. Heller, 74 Colo. 470, 222 P. 648 (1924).

This provision does not bar a cause of action which accrued without the state more than six years before the commencement of the action, but only that it shall be lawful to plead the same in bar of the action. Smith v. Kent Oil Co., 128 Colo. 80, 261 P.2d 149 (1953).

This provision and former § 13-80-118 (now § 13-80-110) should be construed together as an entirety. Simon v. Wilnes, 97 Colo. 78, 47 P.2d 406 (1935).

The statute of limitation in former § 13-80-119 was not applicable to filings under the uniform enforcement of foreign judgments act, § 13-53-101 et seq. Hunter Tech., Inc. v. Scott, 701 P.2d 645 (Colo. App. 1985).

Motorcycle is a motor vehicle for purposes of the phrase "arises out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle" in subsection (1)(n). Gonzales v. City & County of Denver, 998 P.2d 51 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd, 17 P.3d 137 (Colo. 2001).

Where injury to plaintiff arose out of his own operation of motorcycle, plaintiff's tort action arose out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle and three-year statute of limitation under subsection (1)(n) applies rather than two-year limit under § 13-80-102 (1)(a). Court declined to read a limitation into the statute that subsection (1)(n) of this section only applied to injuries arising out of the alleged tortfeasor's use or operation of a motor vehicle. Gonzales v. City & County of Denver, 998 P.2d 51 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd, 17 P.3d 137 (Colo. 2001).