Laserfiche WebLink
and was filed three months before trial . Thus, to allow the <br /> Division to amend its complaint would not have detrimentally <br /> changed the defendants' position in this case. See also Varner <br /> v. District Court, 618 P.2d 1388 (Colo. 1980) (courts look <br /> favorably to motions to amend; courts should not impose arbitrary <br /> restrictions on the application of the rule or exercise its <br /> discretion in a manner that undercuts its basic policy . . . <br /> [A] mendments should be granted in accordance with the overriding <br /> purposes of the new rules of civil procedures to secure the just, <br /> speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action) . <br /> Lastly, contrary to the court' s findings, the defendants <br /> could not have spent substantial attorney' s fees defending <br /> against the plaintiff ' s motion to amend its complaint since the <br /> defendants never had to respond to the motion - the trial court <br /> dismissed the case during the hearing, prior to the time when a <br /> response to the motion from the defendants was due. <br /> Overall , then, the trial court' s finding of detrimental <br /> reliance by the defendants is simply wrong and unsupported by the <br /> record. <br /> C. Application of doctrine undermines important <br /> governmental policy and legislative intent. <br /> Lastly, the trial court' s application of equitable estoppel <br /> to this case undermines the important governmental policy of <br /> ensuring that mine sites be fully reclaimed by undermining the <br /> Division' s ability to meet this goal . See Section 34-33 -102 , <br /> 22 <br />