Court Opinion

ID: 9554005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:39:10.603683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:47.035726
License: Public Domain

Justice QUINN
specially concurring.
I specially concur in the result. In contrast to the majority, I find considerable tension between this division’s opinion and the unpublished opinion in Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Conifer Asset Management, Ltd., (Colo.App. No. 94CA0160, Feb. 3, 1994) (not selected for official publication) *766(Conifer I), which involved the initial appeal of this case.
In Conifer I, the court vacated the foreclosure decree and remanded the ease to the trial court for additional findings on the affirmative defense of waiver. I read Conifer I to say that an issue of fact existed on the issue of waiver and, hence, additional findings on that issue were required on remand. I read this court’s present opinion to say that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support defendant’s affirmative defense that FNMA waived its right to foreclose on the first deed of trust. I agree with this court’s resolution of that issue.
As a result of the order of remand in Conifer I, the trial court was placed in the unfortunate position of being required to make additional findings on an issue that should have been resolved in the first appeal as a matter of law. In my view, this ease should never have been remanded to the trial court in the first instance because, as this court holds, the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the affirmative defense of waiver. I accordingly specially concur in the result.