2021 Colorado Code
Title 15 - Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries
Article 1 - Fiduciary
Part 3 - Fiduciary Investments
§ 15-1-304. Standard for Investments

In acquiring, investing, reinvesting, exchanging, retaining, selling, and managing property for the benefit of others, fiduciaries shall be required to have in mind the responsibilities which are attached to such offices and the size, nature, and needs of the estates entrusted to their care and shall exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of the property of another, not in regard to speculation but in regard to the permanent disposition of funds, considering the probable income as well as the probable safety of capital. Within the limitations of the foregoing standard, fiduciaries are authorized to acquire and retain every kind of property, real, personal, and mixed, and every kind of investment, specifically including, but not by way of limitation, bonds, debentures, and other corporate obligations, stocks, preferred or common, securities of any open-end or closed-end management type investment company or investment trust, and participations in common trust funds, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would acquire or retain for the account of another.

History. Source: L. 51: P. 840, § 1. CSA: C. 176, § 126(5). CRS 53: § 57-3-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 57-3-1. L. 75: Entire section amended, p. 588, § 6, effective July 1. History. Source: L. 51: P. 840, § 1. CSA: C. 176, § 126(5). CRS 53: § 57-3-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 57-3-1. L. 75: Entire section amended, p. 588, § 6, effective July 1.

For investments by custodians under the “Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act”, see § 11-50-113 ; for legal investments, see part 6 of article 75 of title 24; for investments of police and fire pension funds, see § 31-31-302 .

Law reviews. For article, “The ‘Prudent Man Rule' Now Applies to Investments by Fiduciaries”, see 28 Dicta 213 (1951). For article, “Problems in the Administration of Estates of Mental Incompetents”, see 29 Dicta 286 (1952). For article, “On the Prudent Man Rule”, see 30 Dicta 107 (1953). For article, “The Prudent Man: Charge and Surcharge”, see 35 Dicta 69 (1958). For note, “Advice for Advisors - Trust Investments”, see 37 Dicta 306 (1960). For comment on Rippey v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank, appearing below, see 45 Den. L.J. 483 (1968). For article, “Standards of Prudent Investment for Minors Act Custodians”, see 19 Colo. Law. 39 (1990). For article, “The ‘New' Prudent Investor Rule”, see 20 Colo. Law. 713 (1991). For article, “The Prudent Investor Rule as it Affects Fiduciary Investments”, see 21 Colo. Law. 1883 (1992).

Within the limits and scope of their fiduciary duty, directors and officers have the power, the duty, and the discretion to exercise their best judgment when making business decisions for corporate purposes, and such decisions are primarily matters for the judgment of such officers and directors, or the stockholders in exercise of their stockholder powers, and not the court. It is only under special circumstances that the court scrutinizes these decisions. Herald Co. v. Bonfils, 315 F. Supp. 497 (D. Colo. 1970 ).

The standard of care imposed by this section applies to all fiduciaries except custodians. Buder v. Sartore, 774 P.2d 1383 (Colo. 1989).

Ex-husband had fiduciary duty to ex-wife since he retained complete control over her share of stock. Despite having the power to sell the stock within his sole discretion, the husband still was required to operate within the bounds of prudent judgment, reasonableness, and equity. Marshall v. Grauberger, 796 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1990).

As a matter of law, the husband owed the wife a fiduciary duty to deal with her interest with the utmost good faith. Marshall v. Grauberger, 796 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1990).

The “reasonable prudence” standard applies to protecting and caring for the property and does not permit one to prudently speculate. The trustee may not subject his trust property to hazards which a man dealing with his own property might consider warranted if to do so would create danger to the trust estate. Rippey v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank, 273 F. Supp. 718 (D. Colo. 1967 ).

A trustee owes a duty to his beneficiaries to exercise such care and skill as a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in safeguarding and preserving his own property. This rule obtained at common law and has been codified in Colorado. Rippey v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank, 273 F. Supp. 718 (D. Colo. 1967 ).

The trustee should do his best to secure competitive bidding and to surround the sale with such other factors as will tend to cause the property to sell to the greatest advantage. Rippey v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank, 273 F. Supp. 718 (D. Colo. 1967 ); Murphy v. Cent. Bank & Trust Co., 699 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1985).

The trustee's duty of loyalty and of reasonable care dictate that he must seek to obtain the best price obtainable for the property which he is selling. The rule is that a trustee has a duty to determine the fair value of trust property before selling it, and any sale of it for an inadequate consideration measured against its fair value may be subject to being set aside as a constructive fraud upon proper complaint being made. Rippey v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank, 273 F. Supp. 718 (D. Colo. 1967 ); Murphy v. Cent. Bank & Trust Co., 699 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1985).

A trustee's duty of loyalty and of reasonable care dictates that he must seek to obtain the best price for trust property he is selling. If a trust has been damaged but there is uncertainty as to the extent of the damage, damages are to be closely approximated by drawing reasonable and probable inferences from the facts proven. Marshall v. Grauberger, 796 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1990).

Trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust and he may not allow personal motives to interfere with the discharge of those duties. Wright v. Wright, 182 Colo. 425 , 514 P.2d 73 (1973); Vento v. Colo. Nat'l Bank-Pueblo, 907 P.2d 642 (Colo. App. 1995).

Court may not review with advantages of hindsight. When reviewing investments made by a trustee, a court may not use the advantages of hindsight. Heller v. First Nat'l Bank, 657 P.2d 992 (Colo. App. 1982).

Applied in Canaday v. Kauffman, 140 Colo. 165 , 342 P.2d 1027 (1959); Kaitz v. Dist. Court, 650 P.2d 553 (Colo. 1982).