Laserfiche WebLink
A. The granting of summary judgment here <br /> was inappropriate. <br /> In this case, disputed issues of material fact existed as to <br /> each element required for the application of equitable estoppel . <br /> Whether the Division had made a representation to the defendants <br /> with full knowledge of the facts that its prior cost estimate of <br /> $3 million was the total amount that the Division would seek from <br /> the defendants; whether the defendants reasonably relied on any <br /> such representation; and whether the defendants changed their <br /> position to their detriment based on reasonable reliance, were <br /> all unresolved, disputed issues of fact . Accordingly, the record <br /> does not support the trial court' s granting of summary judgment <br /> in this case. <br /> Summary judgment is a drastic measure and is never warranted <br /> except on a clear showing that the pleadings, affidavits, deposi- <br /> tions, and admissions establish that there exists no genuine <br /> issue as to any material fact . Civil Service Com'n v. Pinder, <br /> 812 P.2d 645 (Colo. 1991) . In determining whether summary <br /> judgment is proper, the nonmoving party is entitled to the <br /> benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn <br /> from the undisputed facts, and all doubts must be resolved <br /> against the moving party. Casebolt v. Cowan, 829 P.2d 352 (Colo. <br /> 1992) ; Morlan v. Durland Trust Co. , 127 Colo. 5, 252 P.2d 98 <br /> (1952) ; Norton v. Leadville Corp. , 43 Colo. App. 527, 610 P.2d <br /> 1348 (1979) . <br /> 9 <br />