Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, “Court Administration and General Provisions: Rules 77-85 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 599 (1951). For article, “Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). For article, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals”, see 37 Dicta 21 (1960). For article, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals”, see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). For article, “Rule-Making in Colorado: An Unheralded Crisis in Procedural Reform”, see 38 U. Colo. L. Rev. 137 (1966). Applied in Rogers Concrete, Inc. v. Jude Contractors, 38 Colo. App. 26, 550 P.2d 892 (1976); People in Interest of S.S.T., 38 Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976); Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. State Dept. of Health Air Pollution Variance Bd., 191 Colo. 463, 553 P.2d 800 (1976); Rueda v. District Court, 194 Colo. 327, 575 P.2d 370 (1977); In re Blair, 42 Colo. App. 270, 592 P.2d 1354 (1979); West-Brandt Found., Inc. v. Carper, 199 Colo. 334, 608 P.2d 339 (1980); Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982). II. Special Statutory Proceedings. Law reviews. For article, “Again-How Many Times?”, see 21 Dicta 62 (1944). There is a recognized distinction between “proceedings” and “special proceedings”. Hewitt v. Landis, 75 Colo. 277, 225 P. 842 (1924); Sitler v. Brians, 126 Colo. 370, 251 P.2d 319 (1952) (decided under former C.R.C.P. 111 ). This rule expressly provides that, where a matter is specifically covered by statute, the rules of civil procedure are inapplicable. Theobald v. District Court, 148 Colo. 466, 366 P.2d 563 (1961). The rules of civil procedure do not apply where there is a special statutory proceeding which sets forth remedies. Brown v. Hansen, 177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972). The rules of civil procedure do not govern the procedure and practice in any special statutory proceeding so far as they are inconsistent or in conflict therewith. Wright v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 258, 365 P.2d 691 (1961); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 263, 447 P.2d 537 (1968); Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124 (Colo. App. 1986). If a statute creates a special statutory procedure relating to a type of action then the rules of civil procedure by express exception do not apply. Dallas v. Fitzsimmons, 137 Colo. 196, 323 P.2d 274 (1958). Mere amendment of pleadings cannot accomplish ends which are inconsistent with statutory procedures. Trustees of Mtg. Trust of Am. v. District Court, 621 P.2d 310 (Colo. 1980). Thus, the rules of civil procedure are not applicable to “habeas corpus”, which is special statutory proceeding, insofar as they are inconsistent with the applicable statute pertaining to the special statutory proceeding. Hithe v. Nelson, 172 Colo. 179, 471 P.2d 596 (1970). Likewise, water adjudication proceedings are “special statutory proceedings” as contemplated under this rule. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. Rocky Mt. Power Co., 174 Colo. 309, 486 P.2d 438 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 996, 92 S. Ct. 1245, 31 L. Ed. 2d 465 (1972); S.E. Colo. Water Cons. v. Ft. Lyon Canal Co., 720 P.2d 133 (Colo. 1986). The proceedings prescribed by § 37-92-302 for adjudication of water rights are special proceedings, and their scope is governed by statute. State, Dept. of Natural Res. v. Southwestern Colo. Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983); Meyring Livestock Co. v. Wamsley Cattle Co., 687 P.2d 955 (Colo. 1984). Annexation review is a special statutory proceeding. City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 263, 447 P.2d 537 (1968). Likewise, proceedings under marketing act. If the procedure and practice set forth in the marketing act under § 35-28-119 are in any particulars inconsistent or in conflict with the rules of civil procedure, the statute, and not the rules, would govern. People ex rel. Orcutt v. District Court, 164 Colo. 385, 435 P.2d 374 (1967). Rehearing by the public utilities commission is a special statutory proceeding. Peoples Natural Gas Div. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 698 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1985). Statutory procedures detailing methods for district court review of public utilities commission decisions are special statutory proceedings and govern over conflicting rules of civil procedure. Silver Eagle Servs. v. P.U.C., 768 P.2d 208 (Colo. 1989). Release proceedings are special statutory proceedings. In view of the detailed procedure prescribed by § 16-8-115 the release proceedings are special statutory proceedings governed by this rule. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Historically, the supreme court has considered mental health proceedings to be special statutory proceedings. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Under this rule the procedure in release hearings under § 16-8-115 is so inconsistent and in conflict with the rules of civil procedure as to make civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Based on §§ 16-8-115 through 16-8-117 and on the special nonadversary nature of a release inquiry, the participants in release proceedings do not have the broad right of discovery as provided in the rules of civil procedure. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Proceedings under § 16-5-209 are special statutory proceedings not exempt from application of the rules of civil procedure because said section lacks adequate, exclusive, full, and complete procedures. Moody v. Larsen, 802 P.2d 1169 (Colo. App. 1990). Provisions of the Torrens Title Registration Act govern service of process in case brought under the Torrens Act. Rael v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 1210 (Colo. 1994). Applied in Boxberger v. State Hwy. Comm’n, 126 Colo. 526, 251 P.2d 920 (1952); Stull v. District Court, 135 Colo. 86, 308 P.2d 1006 (1957). III. Divorce and Separate Maintenance. Law reviews. For article, “What Divorce Statutes Are Now in Effect in Colorado?”, see 21 Dicta 68 (1944). For article, “Comments on the Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 22 Dicta 154 (1945). The rules of procedure do not govern procedure and practice in actions in divorce or separate maintenance where they may conflict with the procedure and practice provided by the applicable statutes. Moats v. Moats, 168 Colo. 120, 450 P.2d 64 (1969). Where the divorce statutes are silent as to any method of procedure the rules govern. Myers v. Myers, 110 Colo. 412, 135 P.2d 235 (1943); Holman v. Holman, 114 Colo. 437, 165 P.2d 1015 (1946). The rules of civil procedure apply to a divorce action, unless a contrary rule appears in the divorce statutes. Bacher v. District Court, 186 Colo. 314, 527 P.2d 56 (1974). Applied in People ex rel. Stanko v. Routt County Court, 110 Colo. 428, 135 P.2d 232 (1943); Ingels v. Ingels, 29 Colo. App. 585, 487 P.2d 812 (1971). IV. Appeals. Applied in Niles v. Shinkle, 119 Colo. 458, 204 P.2d 1077 (1949).

For application of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure to proceedings for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, see § 14-10-105 , C.R.S.; for limitation on taking appeals by appellate court, see C.A.R. 1(b).