Judge Klein
Posted on 11/14/2007 10:26:59 PM PST by beaversmom
A judge has ruled in favor of another judge – now retired – in an unusual "adverse possession" land dispute in pricey Boulder, Colo., giving the retired judge a large part of his neighbor's $1 million parcel of land for a pathway to his backyard.
The recent ruling came from James Klein a judge in Colorado's 20th Judicial District covering Boulder, and was in favor of Richard McLean, who retired from the judiciary in Boulder several years ago.
The loser in the case was Boulder resident Don Kirlin, who is publicizing his situation on the landgrabber.org website. He and his wife Susie owned the land in question for more than two decades, and he appeared recently on the radio talk show hosted by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman on Denver's KHOW radio.
(Story continues below)
The result of the lawsuit was that Klein awarded to McLean ownership of 34 percent of a residential lot valued at an estimated $800,000-$1 million in a Boulder subdivision based on McLean's allegations he and family had, under the state's "adverse possession" law, used the property for their own uses in a "notorious" fashion and without permission of the owners for more than 18 years.
Amy Waddle, a spokeswoman with Colorado's 20th Judicial District, said, "The judges don't comment on pending cases. I believe they are considering appeal."
On the radio show Kirlin explained his shock when the land on which he's paid taxes of about $16,000 a year, plus $65 per month homeowner association dues, on which he's sprayed for weeds and repaired fences, suddenly was made unusable by Klein's decision.
"This is a foundation … of our country," Kirlin, an airline pilot, said. "You should be able to buy property and own it."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Previous thread:
A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924861/posts
Ping—your quotes on the previous thread are mentioned in the World Net Daily article. Click on link for World Net Daily—bottom of article.
Judge Klein
on which he’s sprayed for weeds and repaired fences,
***That’s the key sentence. It obviates the “notorious” section of the law and proves that there was in fact no adverse possession. If the judge had been the one caring for the property, then he would have an adverse possession claim. This is a simple land grab, with 2 judges acting in cahoots.
If I had their phone numbers I’d be calling them right now.
So, if I trespass on my neighbors property for 18 years, I can claim it as my own? Utter nonsense.
It used to be that as long as the owner of the property stepped on the parcel being used by the non owner a claim of adverse possession was invalid.
I meant to say stepped on the parcel at least once a year.
This is nothing more than land rustling. I think out West they still know how to deal with rustlers.
Put this scumbag together with his buddy, and a visiting US Circuit judge that let that coyote go on time served, and you have the judiciary as a criminal enterprise all on its own.
Related links:
News Story on Fox Colorado:
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=4844534&version=1&locale=EN-US
Audio from Caplis and Silverman on 630 KHOW Denver:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/111207BOBKIRLIN.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=636&STATION_ID=KHOW-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Dan_Caplis_and_Craig_Silverman&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=Caplis_and_Silverman_Interviews";
I don’t know who is right or who is wrong here. But all we have is one side. Adverse possession cases are fact-driven. We can’r even tell from the article whether this case involved title to the land or a determination that an easement exists.
Under the common law, unless you post property against trespassers, everyone has a right to cross it. If you want to stop people from using your property as a shortcut or whatever, you need to post it or fence it in. If you ignore the property, as these people seem to have done, you run the risk of a public or private right developing.
Adverse possession statutes are related to statutes of limitations. If someone is using your property, you have the right to eject them. But if they use your property and you don’t object for, in this case, eighteen years, then you waited too long and you can’t force the other party out.
Again, it’s not clear whether title to the property passed to the retired judge, or merely the right to cross the property, which is substantially different. The occupations of the parties is irrelevant. Even retired judges have a right to go to court.
Of course, everything could be exactly as the article states. We just don’t know.
Here are the court documents linked by Sue Bob on the previous thread:
http://boulderdude.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/order1.pdf
I’ve only had a chance to skim them, but maybe something in these will give you clarification. From what I have gathered from the audio of Mr. Kirlin on Caplis and Silverman and the video from My Fox Colorado, 1/3 of one of the Kirlins two lots now belongs to the retired judge and his wife.
If an easement were granted, that is what the article would state. This was a taking of 34% of this couple’s land. With this judgement the winner of the suit can ransfer title to himself.
The trespasser who won this suit was a judge, and probably either an unpleasant fellow or jus plain intimidating. There is a big chance that the couple didn’t approach him about his trespasses because hey wanted to avoid conflict.
According to the audio above Mr. Kirlin only met the former judge just recently. The Kirlins live very close to the two lots they own and have stated they visited the lots frequently. They have also stated that they never noticed any encroachments on the land and that the paths were only recently created. Mr. Kirlin has an aerial photo of the land from 2003 and no paths are visible on it.
If that is the case, than the trespass didn’t occur over the period they claimed. It sounds like the judge gave his buddy, retired judge a very nice present. I hope this is overturned on appeal.
To you and everyone interested, here is the audio of Mr. Kirlin’s side of the story:
Audio from Caplis and Silverman on 630 KHOW Denver:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/111207BOBKIRLIN.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=636&STATION_ID=KHOW-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Dan_Caplis_and_Craig_Silverman&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=Caplis_and_Silverman_Interviews";
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.
