Nelson claim in Colorado

2021Ct. May 16, 1997) (unpublished opinion) (same); Pooser v. Lovett Square Townhomes Owners’ Ass’n, 702 S.W.2d 226, 231 (Tex. App. 1985) (same). 24 ¶ 60 We are persuaded by these authorities and, consequently, conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Nelson’s defense of setoff.

2015See Berra v. Springer & Steinberg, P.C., 251 P.3d 567, 570 (Colo.App.2010) (a defendant need only call the argument to the district court's attention and give the court a meaningful opportunity to decide the issue to preserve it). 112 We disagree with Nelson's claim that his case must be remanded.

2010See, eg., Coates, Reid & Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850, 857 (Colo.1993) ("[Tlhe court of appeals properly concluded that the ALJ's failure to exercise the discretion accorded him pursuant to [the statute] was inconsistent with the existing law, and thus correctly set aside the Panel's affirmance of the ALJ's order."); Nelson, 971 P.2d at 250 ("Because of [the trial court's] erroneous conclusion, the trial court did not exercise its discretion in passing upon Nelson's motion to amend; it held, in essence, that the supreme court's prior opinion foreclosed it from exercising that discretion.

2010See, eg., Coates, Reid & Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850, 857 (Colo.1993) ("[Tlhe court of appeals properly concluded that the ALJ's failure to exercise the discretion accorded him pursuant to [the statute] was inconsistent with the existing law, and thus correctly set aside the Panel's affirmance of the ALJ's order."); Nelson, 971 P.2d at 250 ("Because of [the trial court's] erroneous conclusion, the trial court did not exercise its discretion in passing upon Nelson's motion to amend; it held, in essence, that the supreme court's prior opinion foreclosed it from exercising that discretion.