Judge Klein
Previous thread:
A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924861/posts
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.
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.
bkmarking this. thanks.
Maybe Kirlin can get some a Pro Bono attorney to represent his appeal to a higher court and base the case on improper use of judicial powers by Klein and unjust enrichment,possible perjury, and abuse of the legal syetem by a retired judge by McLean, the retired Judge. If he wins he can then sue both of them for civil damages. He may be able to retain an attorney on the basis of a presumed lawsuit against the Judge and the retired judge.
I believe that Adverse Possession means the landowner must know there is a possibility of a land dispute, then the 7 year clock would start ticking once he becomes aware of that. If he had his land posted to keep out trespassers that would help his case..Also a fence would have helped. On the face of it he was truly abused by the legal system and a higher court should not allow that to stand
The kirlins are calmer than I would be. My actions after soemthing like this being done to me would definatly land me in prison for murder.
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."
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?
Across the entire political spectrum, Colorado has gone complete insane in the past few years in my opinion.
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.
I always thought that adverse possession requires the payment of the property taxes by the one trying to take the land.
We all remember what Ben Cartwright and his boys, Adam, Hoss & Little Joe did when people tried squatting and claiming their Ponderosa property.
Adverse possession is a very real and old legal concept, but you have to prove that the property owner was aware of your usage of the property. If the adverse possessors were driving across the other man’s property, regularly for eighteen years and no one stopped them, that would probably constitute a right of way, not ownership of the property.
My friend is isn’t really able to afford an attorney.
