Committee backs bill to let domestic-abuse survivors challenge coerced debt; moves to appropriations

Sponsors told the committee House Bill 11 94 would address coerced debt — debt imposed on people through coercion, fraud, identity theft, or other forms of economic abuse — and create a civil process to pause or stop collection when survivors provide credible documentation.

Representative Armacost, sponsor of HB 11 94, described coerced debt as a form of economic abuse that traps victims and can prevent survivors from obtaining housing, employment, or financial independence. The bill would allow a survivor to submit a statement and supporting documentation to a creditor or debt collector; creditors would be required to stop collection while the claim is reviewed or until a court determines whether the debt was coerced.

Witnesses from Violence Free Colorado, Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance (COVA), Colorado Poverty Law Project and survivors testified in support, describing real-world effects such as wage garnishments, ruined credit, and barriers to housing. Survivor testimony included personal accounts of long-term financial harm attributed to coerced debt.

Key points discussed in committee questions and testimony: - Filing fees and the fiscal note: The fiscal analyst's estimate assumed an increase in filings and applied a county-court filing fee (mid-range $115), resulting in an estimated revenue projection used in the fiscal note. Sponsors and staff said they were continuing to work with the fiscal analyst to refine estimates and that they disagreed with some assumptions used in the fiscal note. - Court jurisdiction and case value: Committee members raised that many consumer debts exceed county-court jurisdictional limits (county courts: $25,000), which could shift cases to district court and change fiscal estimates. The fiscal analyst said roughly 90% of civil cases are filed in county courts and the fiscal note assumed most cases would be filed there; sponsors said they continued to consult the analyst about the projection. - Burden of proof: Sponsors described that the bill places the burden on the creditor to show the debt was not coerced by a preponderance of the evidence once a claim is made; sponsors said they would ensure the burden standard is accurately reflected in final drafting and clarified the bill was designed as a civil remedy rather than a criminal standard.

Representative Amargast moved the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The committee voted 11–2 to advance HB 11 94. Members noted the policy's goal was to give survivors a clear path to contest coerced debt while continuing discussions on fiscal estimates.