Posted on 02/12/2008 7:17:39 AM PST by george76
Lawmakers Want To Make Adverse Possession More Difficult.
A proposal seeking to change a controversial "land grab" law ...
A little more than half of the representatives in the State House have signed on as sponsors of a bill that would make adverse possession of property more difficult.
“Clearly the time has come to change the law of adverse possession in Colorado,”...
The proposal is in response to a ‘land grab’ situation in South Boulder where former mayor and district judge Richard McLean and Edie Stevens, an attorney, sued their neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin for their land.
The couple argued successfully in court that they used the Kirlin’s land for 25 years to get around a retaining wall and access their back yard.
A judge granted McLean and Stevens 34 percent of the Kirlin’s land.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
.
If this law passes it will take effect July 1. The new law would not help the Kirlins.
Thanks for the ping. Any info on how the Kirlin’s case is progressing? I have not kept up on the latest.
McLean, a former RTD board member...
Still under appeal as far as I know.
The ruling judge should be removed from the bench.
The “prescriptive easement” issue is worth looking into when buying any property.
“Clearly the time has come to change the law of adverse possession in Colorado,”
Very clearly
“there’s only one thing between me and taking over Rock Ridge...the rightful owners.” - Heddy Lammar
That ain't all he should do to himself.
So what? This is 1870.
You can sue her!
former mayor and district judge Richard McLean and Edie Stevens, an attorney, sued their neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin for their land. The couple argued successfully in court that they used the Kirlin’s land for 25 years to get around a retaining wall and access their back yard.This -- and a few other things I've read in Shakespeare -- wouldn't have happened if shooting trespassers were legal. Thanks george76.
Thanks for the ping!
Kim Hult wrote. “Kirlin does not allege or argue ... that this evidence could not have been discovered before with the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
So, if I lie and you don’t catch me at the beginning, my lie has to stand as the truth?
Congratulations! You now understand the logic of the democrat party faithful.
23 posted on 03/30/2008 11:23:29 AM MDT by Islander7
Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
Assuming that McLean can state a successful claim for adverse possession, you just don’t do that to you neighbor, even an absentee neighbor.
One would think that a respected judge, who has witnessed the sad pagentry of litigation play out in his courtroom for years, would understand this, and would understand why people are upset.
It’s not about legal rights. It’s about doing what is right.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/25/paths-never-crossed-families-in-land-battle-both/
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.