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 ...
I didn't say it was NOTHING. But it certainly is different. You can't build on it, you can't grow crops on it or plant on it or fence it in, for example.
Where it particularly affects the outcome of the case is it is easier to prove. A worn path is by its nature a notorious use. Again, we know nothing about the quality of the evidence in this case. Suppose, for example, you have a garage in back of your house and a driveway that crosses your neighbor's property. It may be your only access to the garage. Suppose further that the driveway was there when you bought the house and your predecessor in title had been using the driveway since his father was a kid.
Somebody from across the country then buys your neighbor's property and puts a fence across the driveway, digs it up and plants pumpkins. Are you wrong to demand that the driveway stay open?
The basic law on this is more than a thousand years old.
I'm starting to think that every buyer should be given the Laws of Adverse Possession at closing along with summaries of various cases.
Of course, that might eliminate lawsuits so it probably won't happen.
ROTFLOL.
I love the mostly one sided replies the author mentioned.
Since Travis McGee and I are celebrities now; what do we win? LOL
Today's "people's daily camera" has an article about this. Here is just one snippet:
The Kirlins said they understood the issue was that their neighbors wanted continued access through the property to their backyard. Don Kirlin said he offered to give the couple 5 feet of his land from the existing fence line to accommodate the concern, but his offer was rejected. He said he now thinks there was an ulterior motive for the lawsuit.Having 39 years experience with Boulderites, I'm betting he is correct."I believe that their intent was not to have access to their backyard, as they claim, but actually to make my lot un-buildable so they would be able to maintain their view of the southwest."
I think you would be safe in that bet.
I suspect you are wrong this is boulder and the property is worth a million dollars
Thatfame and 3 bucks will get us a cup of starbucks.
One of the articles mentions something like "the person more attached to the land owns it". So, if I trespass his marriage and scr** his wife, him suspecting I'm doing it, can I claim her?
Sounds good to me. LOL
This looks like a RICO conspiracy to me!
Across the entire political spectrum, Colorado has gone complete insane in the past few years in my opinion.
I was speaking legally. You are talking about uncontested invasion. You are also quite correct.
Under the common-law and many state statues that have codified the common-law, the answer is -- YES. In fact, you generally only need to trespass for ten years to stake a claim to the property by adverse possession or prescriptive easement. The key is that the use must be open, continuous, adverse, and notorious. If you are using the property with the express or implied permission of the owner, then your claim to the property through adverse possession/prescriptive easement will fail.
An interesting example of this legal principal occurs every year in NYC. One of the streets that runs through Rockefeller Center is actually owned by Columbia University. To prevent the City or the public from claiming adverse ownership of the street and/or an easement by prescription, Columbia University closes the street to the public once a year so as to break the continuity.
This is a classic "good old boy" deal involving local lawyers and judges getting together to steal. Note that the property owner goes to build a fence and the "lawyer/ex-judge" gets a TRO in TWO HOURS and it gets issued AFTER THE COURT IS CLOSED.
I wish these folks well but they have already lost a lot. Their property was worth $800K-$1 million and their legal fees will be hundreds of thousands. If they prevail on appeal they will still be out 100's of thousands of dollars. That's besides all the stress.
It does appear that they received very bad advice from their lawyers who suggested that they not have a jury trial and instead let a local judge decide. I'm very suspicious of that. Very.
I'd like to see this go the same way the Judge with the pants at the cleaners deal went. Maybe it will.
That sounds like a good strategy to me. But if you get a judge like this guy who obviously decided ahead of time for his buddy, you might want a backup plan.
Here’s one. Video cameras are cheap now. Once a quarter or so, drive around your property with the camera running, and throw the tape/DVD into a file somewhere “just in case”. It will prove you took pains to maintain and preserve your land possession.
Heres what the law is for.
You and I are neighbors for 10 years. You build a fence between our property and we both agree its on your land. I sell my house after 10 years. New owner checks plot and the fence is on his land. Under advere possession you could get the “small” strip of land the fence is on since you believed it to be yours the whole time.
This was nothing similiar to the example I had above. The owner has pictures of the land the day he received the restraining order to stop building the fence, no path on his property. He has recent pictures and now there is a path. So he is calling the retired judge a liar, which he is.
Wonder what Caplis and Silverman will have about the case tonight.
The owners approached the retired judge and offered to give up 5 feet of land so the judge could have a path to his backyard. The judge said no.
The owner thinks the judge did this to protect his scenic view since the original owner was about to build a house on the vacant lot which would have interfered with the judges scenic view.
I always thought that adverse possession requires the payment of the property taxes by the one trying to take the land.
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.