Colorado § 4-9-201 - General effectiveness of security agreement.

Full text of Colorado Colorado Revised Statutes § 4-9-201 — General effectiveness of security agreement., with citation guidance and answers to common questions.

§ 4-9-201. General effectiveness of security agreement.

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this title, a security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties, against purchasers of the collateral, and against creditors.

(b) A transaction subject to this article 9 is subject to any applicable rule of law that establishes a different rule for consumers and any other statute or rule of this state that regulates the rates, charges, agreements, and practices for loans, credit sales, or other extensions of credit and any consumer protection statute or rule of this state, including, but not limited to, the "Uniform Consumer Credit Code", articles 1 to 9 of title 5; the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act", article 1 of title 6; "assignment of wages", article 9 of title 8; "property and earnings exempt", article 54 of title 13; and the "Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act", article 16 of title 5.

(c) In case of conflict between this article and a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (b) of this section, the rule of law, statute, or regulation controls. Failure to comply with a statute or regulation described in subsection (b) of this section has only the effect the statute or regulation specifies.

(d) This article does not:

(1) Validate any rate, charge, agreement, or practice that violates a rule of law, statute, or regulation described in subsection (b) of this section; or

(2) Extend the application of the rule of law, statute, or regulation to a transaction not otherwise subject to it.

Source: L. 2001: Entire article R&RE, p. 1334, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2002: (b) and (c) amended, p. 937, § 2, effective August 7. L. 2017: (b) amended, (HB 17-1238), ch. 260, p. 1169, § 5, effective August 9.

Editor's note: (1) The provisions of this section are similar to former §§ 4-9-201 and 4-9-203 (4) as they existed prior to 2001.

(2) Colorado legislative change: Colorado did not adopt the phrase "rule of law" in subsections (b) and (c) in 2001 when this article was repealed and reenacted. The phrase was subsequently adopted in 2002.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "The Revolution in Consumer Credit Legislation", see 45 Den. L.J. 679 (1968).

Annotator's note. Since § 4-9-201 is similar to §§ 4-9-201 and 4-9-203 as they existed prior to the 2001 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Security agreement is effective between parties except as specifically provided. It is the policy of the UCC that a security agreement shall be effective between the parties and against other parties except as specifically provided otherwise in the code. Guy Martin Buick, Inc. v. Colo. Springs Nat'l Bank, 32 Colo. App. 235, 511 P.2d 912 (1973), aff'd, 184 Colo. 166, 519 P.2d 354 (1974).

Judicial lien takes priority. A perfected security interest securing an obligation that was undertaken by debtor before creation of a judicial lien took priority over the lien even if such obligation did not become due until after the lien's creation. Alling v. Am. Tool and Grinding Co., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1344 (D. Colo. 1986).

Extension of security agreement to include additional amounts need not adhere to any particular form where the original agreement or indenture is valid and does not prescribe any particular form for extension agreements. The extension agreement operates as a modification of the original note amount. Vance v. Casebolt, 841 P.2d 394 (Colo. App. 1992).

There is an inconsistency between this section and former § 4-9-306 on subject of proceeds. Fort Collins Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Carroll Dairy, 37 Colo. App. 536, 553 P.2d 95 (1976) (decided prior to the 1977 amendment of this section and § 4-9-306).

Applied in Young v. Golden State Bank, 632 P.2d 1053 (Colo. App. 1981); Layne v. Fort Carson Nat'l Bank, 655 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1982); ITT Diversified Credit Corp. v. Couch, 669 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1983); Bank of Am. v. Denver Hotel Ass'n, 830 P.2d 1138 (Colo. App. 1992).

Source: official Colorado text · Last verified 2026-08-27

Frequently Asked Questions About Colorado § 4-9-201

What does Colorado Revised Statutes § 4-9-201 cover?

Section 4-9-201 ("General effectiveness of security agreement.") is part of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the codified statutory law of Colorado. It sets out the legal rule or procedure described in the text above. Statutes are amended regularly, so always verify against the official source.

How do I cite Colorado § 4-9-201?

A common citation format is "Colorado Revised Statutes § 4-9-201" (Colorado). Legal writing may require the code abbreviation, section number, and year or edition. Match the style required by your court, professor, or publisher.

Is this the official text of Colorado law?

No. This page is for research and education and may not include the most recent amendments. For official current law, check the Colorado official source linked on this page or consult a licensed Colorado attorney.

How does Colorado § 4-9-201 apply to my situation?

Statutes are interpreted in context, and application depends on your specific facts. Only a licensed attorney in Colorado can advise on how this section applies to you. Contact your state or local bar association for a referral.

Sources & Verification

Not legal advice. Verify against the official source and consult a licensed attorney in Colorado.