6093F53808D9E48E87258A4E005A65C3 Hearing Summary

Steve Brainerd, CBA Trusts and Estates Section, the section has been reviewing the act over the last nine months and are here to offer recommendations to have it work better within Colorado law and practice. First, based on a recommendation from a previous commission meeting to remove the inclusion of the Uniform Electronic Wills Act which Colorado had already enacted, and suggests that the title and terms of the act be changed to refer to only non-testamentary estate planning documents. The purpose of this act is to validate electronically signed documents other than wills. The work group believes that these changes do not affect the uniformity of the act. In addition, they are suggesting a few substantive revisions including modifications to a couple of definitions to accord with similar definitions in related Colorado statutes and to a list of documents in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph A. Most of the list of documents has been maintained, but suggest eliminating the catch-all phrase "Any electronically signed document intended to govern an individual's property, disposition, or health-care at incapacity or death", found in romanette xiv, which may lead to litigation. In paragraph B the section recommends excluding any documents that are not listed in paragraph A. In section 201 the section has tried to make it clear that nothing in the act precludes the validity of an electronic record including community property survivorship agreements that multiple parties expressly agree are to be executed in electronic form. Finally, the proposed addition of section 211 which is designed to ensure that the act does not create liabilities for persons who undertake in good faith to perform acts based on hard copy documents, not knowing that some other electronic instrument may have eliminated or altered their authority. This testimony represents only the opinion of the Trusts and Estates Section.

 

Letty Maxfield, CBA Trusts and Estates, assured the commission that there is no conflict between the revised act and the uniform wills act previously enacted.

Benjamin Orzeske, ULC, noted that the section did a thorough job of reviewing the act and proposing changes. The drafting  committee on the uniform act felt it would be impossible to come up with a complete list of estate planning documents that might be subject to this act and therefor included the catch-all phrase. With respect to various beneficiary designations and payment on death bank account agreements or IRA transfers, the act proposes that these documents should not be disqualified simply because they have electronic signatures or in electronic form. The documents still have to meet all other requirements. And for the documents that might be subject to the Uniform Transactions Act, the drafting committee felt that their inclusion in this act is at worse a redundancy. The proposed changes do not appear to affect the uniformity of the act. Commission Mielke asked about the addition of section 211 regarding good faith actions. Mr. Orzeske replied that its inclusion does no harm.

 

Commissioner Mielke moved the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act (2022) be drafted, as amended by the CBA, as a commission bill for introduction. Commissioner Snyder seconded, the motion passed without objection.  Commissioner Snyder agreed to sponsor the act.