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 ...
Who says that the old fashioned, RAT style, “good ole’ boy network” down at the courthouse is a thing of the past?
Assuming that McLean can state a successful claim for adverse possession, you just don’t do that to you neighbor, even an absentee neighbor.
One would think that a respected judge, who has witnessed the sad pagentry of litigation play out in his courtroom for years, would understand this, and would understand why people are upset.
It’s not about legal rights. It’s about doing what is right.
Remember the Ramsey mess in Boulder ?
old fashioned, RAT style, “good ole’ boy network”
I don’t know enough about the situation to comment. I know Stevens has resigned but I don’t know what Levy has said/not said. I’ll have to listen to Caplis and Silverman tonight to get caught up :)
I don’t know if what happened is even legal—a true case of adverse possession? I know Caplis (although not a property attorney) was questioning the legality of it—definitely questioning the morality of it.
Are you a RPLS?
Check! Same in Oregon.
Open, hostile, notorious, exclusive, taxes
I doubt this land grab attempt is legal.
Two year path ...not a twenty year path.
Neighbors and the HOA management do not apparently remember a 20 path, aerial photos do not apparently show a 20 path...and more too.
the morality of this attempt to a neighbor is awful.
Isn't it funny how the lieyers among us don't see the necessity of those constraints? Like anybody should be able to glom onto any piece of land they wish, as long as they are willing to pay a lieyer.
That's known as perjury.
Yes it is, and by a former judge no less.
Just pray the Federal Judge isn't a Democrat crony and a Clinton appointee.
Don and Susie Kirlin said Saturday they have been inundated with phone calls, letters and e-mails over the past few weeks from area residents expressing support for the couple...
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/18/picnic-protest-set-for-disputed-property/
Also on Saturday, state Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, announced that she has accepted the resignation of Edith Stevens as her campaign treasurer.
“(Stevens) has resigned, and I accepted her resignation,” Levy said.
Levy said last week that she had received several requests from constituents to “disassociate” herself from Stevens, who worked on Levy’s 2006 campaign.
Levy said Stevens did not offer a reason for the resignation, which she said was done by phone.
Rep. Claire Levy better take a good look at those books and check for embezzlement. If she wants to save her political hide, she ought to throw unEthical Edie to the wolves.
Claire Levy - still not getting it
When asked what her reaction was to Stevens’ resignation, Levy said, “It’s best that we all just move on and attend to the business we have.”
This may actually be the most damaging outcome for Claire because it lets her think this is behind her while she still has not spoken to the issue. And her ending request to move on once again comes across as arrogant and unwilling to speak to the issue at hand.
Again, we will have to see how the next few weeks play out.
Will Claire finally make a statement about her opinion of the land grab?
Will this story stay front and center for awhile? Will a credible opponent run against Claire in the election?
But as of now I think her seat remains very much in play in the upcoming election. And if the Republicans nominate a strong candidate (hint - Bob Greenlee), then it’s a real race.
http://www.davidthielen.info/politics/2007/11/claire-levy-—s.html
The point has to be made that her being in the House will only be to benefit her buddies like Edie Stevens. If I was her opponent I would make big hay of that, that Claire would only stand in the way of fixing these crappy laws and enabling corruption by her friends.
Edie Stevens' name deserves to be synonymous with "unethical" -- like Benedict Arnold's name means "traitor."
These people need to remember there is a higher authority, and He holds their very life and health in His hands, which he can take away at any moment.
These people have no fear of God. They should.
Any well developed or well-used path will show up as well, and this is the basis for the adverse posession claim.
In short, evidence, pro or con.
It has one hell of a lot more than 'jack squat' to do with it if the claimed 18 years of use don't show up until a year or so ago, it means the litigants trying to claim adverse posession are lying.
That is not "adverse posession", it is theft.
Of course, with the condition of the courts today, I can see why pertinent, even crucial evidence might not have "Jack squat" to do with the decision handed down.
YMMV.
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.