Updated August 3, 2026. Quick answer: Colorado accepts two witnesses or a notary, and applies the same disqualification list to both — the notary is not a way around it. Colorado also does something no other state we have published does: the notary route can be set aside by a court in the interest of justice.
The execution box
- Who may execute: any adult with decisional capacity.
- Route A: signed by the declarant in the presence of two witnesses.
- Route B: signed and acknowledged before a notary — subject to the court caveat below.
- Disqualified people cannot serve in either role, witness or notary.
- If you cannot physically sign, another person may sign for you, subject to the same exclusions.
What the statute says
(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 15-18-105, a declaration must be: (a) Signed by the declarant in the presence of two witnesses; or (b) Signed by the declarant and acknowledged before a notary public or other individual authorized by law to take acknowledgments, unless a court determines that this subsection (1)(b) should not apply to the declaration in the interest of justice. (2) For the purposes of this section, a person specified in section 15-18-105 shall not be a witness, notary public, or other individual authorized by law to take acknowledgments.
— C.R.S. §15-18-106
Two features stand out.
1. The notary is not an escape hatch here. Subsection (2) applies the section 15-18-105 exclusions to the notary as well as to witnesses. In Texas, signing before a notary sidesteps the witness qualification problem entirely; in Colorado it does not, because a disqualified person cannot take the acknowledgement either.
2. A court can disapply the notary route. “…unless a court determines that this subsection (1)(b) should not apply to the declaration in the interest of justice.” We have not found this anywhere else. It means a notarised Colorado declaration is not unconditionally safe from challenge in the way a notarised document usually is — which is an argument for using two clean witnesses as well, where that is practical.
Who is disqualified — and it governs witnesses, notary and signer alike
In the event that the declarant is physically unable to sign the declaration, it may be signed by some other person in the declarant’s presence and at the declarant’s direction. The other person shall not be: (a) The attending physician or any other physician; (b) An employee of the attending physician or health-care facility in which the declarant is a patient; (c) A person who has a claim against any portion of the estate of the declarant at his or her death at the time the declaration is signed; or (d) A person who knows or believes that he or she is entitled to any portion of the estate of the declarant upon the declarant’s death either as a beneficiary of a will in existence at the time the declaration is signed or as an heir at law.
— C.R.S. §15-18-105(1)
The list is compact but wide:
- The attending physician or any other physician. Note “any other” — not merely the treating one.
- An employee of the attending physician or of the facility where the declarant is a patient.
- Anyone with a claim against any portion of the estate at the time of signing.
- Anyone who knows or believes they are entitled to any portion of the estate — as a beneficiary of an existing will, or as an heir at law.
That last one is the trap, and note its wording: it turns on what the person knows or believes. An adult child who assumes they will inherit is disqualified whether or not a will says so.
Artificial nutrition and hydration is a separate, structured choice
(a) A declaration may contain separate written statements regarding the declarant’s preference concerning life-sustaining procedures and artificial nutrition and hydration if the declarant has a terminal condition or is in a persistent vegetative state. (b) The declarant may provide in his or her declaration one of the following actions: (I) That artificial nutrition and hydration not be continued; (II) That artificial nutrition and hydration be continued for a specified period; or (III) That artificial nutrition and hydration be continued.
— C.R.S. §15-18-104(3)
Colorado does not leave this to general wording. The declaration may carry a separate statement, and the statute offers three specific options: not continued, continued for a specified period, or continued. A form that only speaks of “life-sustaining procedures” leaves this unanswered.
Colorado also allows the declaration to be combined with a medical power of attorney into a single document, provided the requirements of both are met.
This is the medical instrument, not the financial one
It covers health care decisions. It does not let anyone pay a bill, reach an account or manage property — that is a financial power of attorney, separate again.
Power of attorney requirements by state
What could not be verified
We have quoted sections 15-18-104(3), 15-18-105(1) and 15-18-106. We have not covered revocation, when a declaration becomes operative, physician non-compliance, the CPR directive, or the Colorado Patient Autonomy Act provisions governing a combined document. The “interest of justice” caveat is quoted because it is unusual; how courts apply it is beyond what the statute says.
Related: Nevada, where the instrument decides the rule · Oklahoma, which has no notary route · requirements by state.
General information drawn from state statutes and official state or court forms, not legal advice. These instruments are governed by the law of the state where the property sits or the document is signed, and formalities differ from state to state — execution, witnessing and recording requirements are the parts that void a document when they are missed. Your own state’s current statute governs.