2021 Colorado Code
Title 15 - Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries
Article 14 - Persons Under Disability - Protection
Part 3 - Guardianship of Incapacitated Person
§ 15-14-311. Findings - Order of Appointment

1. The court may:
   1. Appoint a limited or unlimited guardian for a respondent only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that:
      1. The respondent is an incapacitated person; and
      2. The respondent's identified needs cannot be met by less restrictive means, including use of appropriate and reasonably available technological assistance; or

   2. With appropriate findings, treat the petition as one for a protective order under section 15-14-401, enter any other appropriate order, or dismiss the proceeding.

2. The court, whenever feasible, shall grant to a guardian only those powers necessitated by the ward's limitations and demonstrated needs and make appointive and other orders that will encourage the development of the ward's maximum self-reliance and independence.
3. Within thirty days after an appointment, a guardian shall send or deliver to the ward and to all other persons given notice of the hearing on the petition a copy of the order of appointment, together with a notice of the right to request termination or modification.

History. Source: L. 2000: Entire part R&RE, p. 1797, § 1, effective January 1, 2001 (see § 15-17-103 ).

This section is similar to former § 15-14-304 as it existed prior to 2001.

Law reviews. For article, “Adult Guardianships and Conservatorships: Protection of Constitutional Rights”, see 15 Colo. Law. 820 (1986). For article, “Interrogating Medical Witnesses as to Mental Capacity”, see 23 Colo. Law. 2753 (1994). For article, “Legal Guidelines and Methods for Evaluating Capacity”, see 32 Colo. Law. 65 (June 2003).

Because there was no declaration of mental incapacity at a formal hearing prior to plaintiff's execution of a warranty deed, the good faith purchasers had no constructive notice of plaintiff's alleged mental state. Therefore, the good faith purchasers have a valid interest in the property even if it is later established that plaintiff was mentally incapacitated when he executed the deed. Delsas ex rel. Delsas v. Centex Home Equity, 186 P.3d 141 (Colo. App. 2008).