Posted on 07/07/2008 6:53:48 AM PDT by george76
Exactly as some legal experts predicted, Boulder's courts saw a spike in claims of "adverse possession" filed by people apparently trying to beat the clock on changes to the controversial land law.
Of the 25 active adverse-possession lawsuits in Boulder County -- where a person or company claims someone else's land after trespassing on it for at least 18 years -- 15 of those cases were filed in June
Some of those cases were filed just hours before changes to the law went into effect last Tuesday, court records show.
The changes, drafted by a bipartisan group of state legislators in the wake of a high-profile adverse-possession case in south Boulder last year, were designed to make it more difficult for people to win such cases by raising the standard of proof and requiring a "good-faith" belief that a trespasser rightly owned the disputed land to begin with.
The changes also could prove financially costly to would-be plaintiffs, as judges have gained the ability under the law to order adverse possessors to pay the losing side for the land, as well as 18 years or more of back property taxes and interest.
Crosser said she was surprised by the influx of Boulder-area residents ready to sue their neighbors for land using the previous, less restrictive law.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
ht comments
Or a liberal!!
I have never understood the rational behind adverse possession. Was there some good reason for it in olden days? It just seems nuts to me.
At least the state changed the law to prevent more of these cases.
Isn’t adverse-possession where a property claim is CREATED out of thin air by trespassing long enough?
Well it also comes out of the old English law tradition of “Use it or lose it.”
Liberals suing liberals.
Very libertarian concept then.
Record title is the highest form of title and is not easily defeated, but `the law favors the man with the hoe’.
If a claimant can show with clear and convincing evidence his open, notorious, actual, continuous, hostile and exclusive use of land—all of the preceding elements—adverse to the record title owner’s use, for the requisite period of time, then he will be held to have acquired title by prescription, or by adverse posssession.
I believe that’s the law in most states.
Kirlin said he thinks adverse possession... was designed as a “shield to protect the innocent, as opposed to a sword for opportunistic individuals to take advantage of their neighbors.”
Sounds like the same principle by which you forfeit your possessions held in a security box because even though you pay for the storage, you haven’t opened the box in years.
If the taxes are delinquent, then the property can be seized and SOLD. Anything else is justifying the practice of “squatters’ rights”.
Squatting is a big problem in Europe (people can move into your vacant building rent free and you can have a hard time kicking them out).
Up until now, both Boulder cases originated with crooked judges, not crooked lawyers.
Retired judge, ex-mayor, ex-RTA Board member Richard McLean and his wife, Edith Stevens are both lawyers.
No. Crooked judges AND crooked lawyers.
The shyster lawywers and judge used that law as a method of legalized theft in McLean and Stevens vs their neighbor, glad to see this law being changed.
McLean and his wife may revel in their victory but they’re still, and always will be, theives!
theives = thieves
Edith Stevens is former chair of the Boulder County Democratic party. ‘Nuff said there.
Boulder has seen an influx of wealthy East and West Coasters, buying properties and driving them into the $2-22 million range, and they all clamor over who can post the most Obama signs on their lawns!
Isn’t trespassing against the law? How, then, can one be rewarded for doing something against the law? I know, I know, it’s a silly question.
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.