| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 11/15/2007 7:49:13 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 11/15/2007 7:18:00 PM PST by beaversmom
(CBS4) BOULDER, Colo. A couple that owned an undeveloped piece of land in Boulder for 23 years lost part of that plot to neighbors because of a little-known state law.
"We always thought someday, somehow, we were going to build our dream home on this lot," said Don Kirlin.
A third of the land belongs to the couple's neighbors after they acquired it for free under a law called adverse possession.
"They could have come over and said 'get off my property,' they could have built a fence, but if they didn't do that for 18 years, the law is going to transfer title to the new user," said Patrick Wilson, a lawyer who specializes in land disputes.
The legal dispute was based on a path. The neighbors said they used the path to get access to their backyard.
Court documents show the neighbors, Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, said they used the path continuously for 25 years without permission. The court filing also claimed they used the land virtually every day for gardening, a wood pile and even entertained on the land.
The couple said they knew the lot was owned by someone, but no one interfered.
The Kirlins used photos of the land taken in 2003 that don't appear to show a path.
The court concluded the neighbors' attachment to the land is stronger than the true owners. That means the neighbors can get a chunk of the land for free.
"How these people can do this and feel it's okay is beyond me," Don Kirlin said.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens said through their lawyer that they did not want to comment because of pending litigation. The case is being appealed.
The Kirlins have spent $120,000 in legal fees and plan to spend another $60,000 on the appeal.
Already posted!
Related links on FR:
A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
Novmeber 5, 2007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924861/posts
Retired judge: This land is my land (Jurist rules in favor of colleague, snatches $1 million parcel)
November 14, 2007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925997/posts
Dang your fast. The other links on FR are different sources.
If you use the property in a manner that is open and notorious and continuous for the statutory period.....bingo, it’s yours. Tried one of these in East Texas once and won it. Bordered Toledo Bend Lake. Fun case.
But it’s still the same story and nothing new.
Click on this link to see a video of the Kirlins and the land in question:
http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_319091443.html
Gee, they conveniently forgot to mention that the beneficiary of this whole court proceeding happens to be a newly-retired judge. Perhaps he’s a friend of the judge who made the ruling? Naaah, couldn’t be - that would be a conflict of interest.
I know, but it’s a different source and I’m sure some people on FR didn’t see the first two. Also, there is a video of the Kirlins and the land at the link. Take it up with the moderators if it is bothering you.
I think it’s called stealing.
The base premise of this story is false; this case will be overturned on appeal.
They should have made a $120,000.00 fence.
But they didn't; the aerial photos prove that they didn't. The case will be overturned.
Thats right. Goes back to Common Law. In CA I think it is 10 years.
The same thing can happen if you give someone permission to cross your land regularly. They use your land as the means of access to their land, then you find that you cannot rescind permission.
Regularly inspect all property holdings for unauthorized usage. Document and interrupt the unauthorized usage. Use the local police to notify the unauthorized users of the violation.
ping
Does anyone in the USA even really “own” their own land, nowadays?
Miss a tax payment and.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.