Posted on 11/21/2007 8:13:56 PM PST by george76
A judiciary oversight committee has rejected a Boulder couple's request to investigate a neighboring couple who used an arcane legal loophole to take over their property.
The Colorado Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Counsel rejected Don and Susie Kirlin's request to investigate ex-judge and former Boulder mayor Richard McLean and his lawyer wife Edith Stevens, who won a strip of their property on Hardscrabble Drive.
In a letter to the Kirlins, assistant regulation counsel Louise Culberson-Smith said that the McLean and Stevens' use of an "adverse possession claim" to win the land does not constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
McLean and Stevens won a third of a vacant lot that the Kirlins owned for more than 20 years, making it impossible for them to build a dream home they had planned for the site.
The legal doctrine of "adverse possession" lets someone who uses another's property for 18 years without an owner's objection ...
The Kirlins said that McLean and Stevens misused their knowledge of the law by trespassing on their property for years and then arguing that trespass gave them a right to the land.
"In my opinion that is not the way an attorney should use the law. The code of ethics says they will not use their knowledge of the law for personal gain over people that don't have that knowledge," Don Kirlin said Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
Pretty much an all-encompassing and possibly unwarranted attack. Real Estate law varies state to state. Not sure of current law, but in the old-olden days in California, for one to obtain land via adverse possession the legal requirements held to utilizing the property in a wanton manner, while paying the annual property tax on same. Not sure of the time constraints but seem to remember that such "possession" and tax submission was required for seven consecutive years.
Nice to see the other side saddled with a big problem.
some links here, too.
Any thoughts on Bob Greenlee ?
Thoughts on Claire Levy - still not getting it
and some other links.
But using perjury to win the claim does I bet...
This case had nothing to do with any fence.
It was a bald faced move to prevent the development of a very legal subdivision lot. The testimony given by the plaintifs was perjured, as proven by aerial photographs on file with the Bolder city engineer.
This is a clear case where the judge should have ‘recused’ himself due to his personal relationship with the plaintiff, but instead used his position to do a big favor for his friend.
Is that what you meant by “it’s the law?”
I trust that you have some familiarity with "The Protocols...?"
1. a neighboring couple who used an arcane legal loophole to take over their property
Adverse possession is not "a legal loophole."
Adverse possession is also not "arcane" (unlike, say, Arlen Specter's use of Scottish law).
It is real property law that has been around for centuries. It is used in hundreds, if not thousands of boundary line disputes every year. I'm not a lawyer and I knew about it. IIRC all US states (except Louisiana) honor the concept.
2. McLean and Stevens won a third of a vacant lot that the Kirlins owned for more than 20 years, making it impossible for them to build a dream home they had planned for the site.
This is a flat-out falsehood.
It is NOT "impossible" for the Kirlins to build on the site. They still own PLENTY of room to build. (I have proved this on previous threads, posting links to aerial photographs that showed all lot lines.)
I was initially sympathetic to the Kirlins, but the more I looked into the case the more I saw they are distorting the facts, and cynically manipulating a willing media to try to inflame the public.
Dumb move. They wasted their money and their time pursuing vindictive "ethics" charges that their lawyer almost certainly told them were clearly unfounded. Their appeal will go nowhere either.
Don't trust the biased media in this case. Instead, read the judge's order, linked in previous threads, in which the judge outlined the law, the facts, and the reasoning. The law and the facts were NOT on the Kirlins' side.
yup :
This is a clear case where the judge should have ‘recused’ himself due to his personal relationship with the plaintiff, but instead used his position to do a big favor for his friend.
Your post is 100% false.
You’re trying to mislead. The case was decided without any palpable evidence in McLean’s favor, and considerable testimony in Kirlin’s favor.
The ruling is pure personal favoritism.
If you're going to make an assertion like that, you really should post your evidence.
You’re trying to mislead.
Absolutely not. I started out like most people on this thread, thinking the judge's ruling sounded pretty outrageous. Then I found out the facts weren't as advertised by the MSM.
The case was decided without any palpable evidence in McLean’s favor, and considerable testimony in Kirlin’s favor.
Sure there was "considerable testimony in [the] Kirlins' favor." That's kind of a "duh" statement. There's always "considerable testimony" in favor of the losing side in a civil case. But in this case it wasn't the preponderance of the evidence.
The ruling is pure personal favoritism.
Where do you get that "fact"? Please post your evidence. I suspect you have no facts, just prejudice and assumptions.
“It is NOT “impossible” for the Kirlins to build on the site.”
How do you know this? You typically can’t cover every square inch of your property with a structure. In Lafayette, CO, a town in Boulder County just to the east of Boulder, the foorprint of a home can only cover 30% of the lot.
30% of what they have left is 871 sq ft.
I know this because I looked up an actual aerial photograph showing the McLean/Stevens lot --and the adjacent two lots owned by the Kirlins.
What the MSM isn't telling you, at least in this article, is that the Kirlins
(a) own two lots to the west of the McClean/Stevens house, and
(b) that the Kirlins admit they never intended to build on the lot that has been affected by the judgment.
What I think is most likely, from looking at the actual site, is that the Kirlins would've built on their combined two lots --and even after losing a third of the lot adjacent to McClean/Stevens, they still can.
Look for yourself, if you're interested enough. A picture (or an aerial photo) is worth a thousand words:
1. Go to the Boulder County assessor's website and click on "e-mapping" on the left side.
2. Click "OK" on the disclaimer, and it will bring up a page where you can search by address or parcel number.
3. If you select "parcel number," enter the number 157717213042 .
That will bring up the McClean/Stevens property, with a bright outline showing their boundaries.
Note the two lots to the left (west); those are the Kirlins' two lots. LOTS of room to build on, pun intended.
This is not to say that the Kirlins haven't lost something valuable. But the photo proves that the MSM's claims that the Kirlins' property has been rendered "useless" or "worthless" or "unbuildable" or "un-sellable" by this judgment are false.
It doesn’t matter that they had another lot or what their intentions were on how to develop it.
I figured that was your point. Sort of a “tax the rich” attitude.
I figured that was your point. Sort of a “tax the rich” attitude.
No, you've totally misread my reply. Which was a reply to your question.
Remember what your question was? It was "how do I know" that the Kirlins still have enough land to build on.
I showed you how I know. If you looked at the aerial photo I provided via link (post 75), you'll see it's undeniable that the Kirlins could STILL BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY, easily. Or sell it. It is undeniably still a desirable property, even with a 33% chunk taken out of the smaller of the two lots.
Which puts the lie to the Kirlins' and the MSM's claims that their property is now rendered "useless" "worthless" "unbuildable" etc etc etc.
Now I don't know about you, but when I catch people lying about a legal case, I start to question their claims about everything else.
It's like the Jena Six case. If you only listened to the screamers and the MSM, you'd have a totally distorted view of what's really going on there. You might think the judge in that case was an evil racist -- when he was only judiciously applying the law.
That's why I suggest people look at the evidence. See the photos as linked from post 75 above.
And read the judge's decision rather than the MSM's hysterical and biased account of the case.
It's getting late here & I have to get up early tomorrow. So goodnight. (To anyone who posts, if I don't reply, that's why.)
It may not be so easy.
First, the HOA likely requires a minimum house size to support property values. So the second lot may indeed be unbuildable on its own.
Second, they can't just waltz into the Boulder recorder's office and have plat lines redrawn to combine the lots.
The first thing the city is going to see is an otherwise valueless lot adjoining Open Space...and they are going to condemn it and take it by eminent domain. That will be the next shoe to drop.
bump
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.