These people had their property stolen, flat out, by a judge and his buddies. I would guess that they would be eating something besides Special K.
Either
Or
Posted on 12/05/2007 7:40:01 PM PST by george76
Perhaps if the wife had had the Kirlins falsley accused of a capitol crime then executed, they could have taken the land with no further hassle....worked for Jezebel and Ahab against an unfortunate neighbor named Naboth!
Nine inches is a lot. Maybe 4 1/2 inches from the front and 4 1/2 inches from the back would make them happy.
I used to serve on an HOA board myself--for nine years. It is a grave mistake to piss those people off. They can find all kinds of arcane things in the CC&Rs to make McLean/Stevens miserable, and do it all legally, too.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Now Judge Klein is using the same argument to deny them the 9 inches that he used to give them 1/3 of the lot!! Where is the letter of the law logic in that?
Maybe the Clintons are near the property...is
nine enough...ask Hillary??? JK
It means the judge made a decision on the evidence presented at trial and he just reaffirmed it.
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.
Just curious. What would happen if the business owner decided to increase the size of his parking lot and took the 1/2 width of the driveway to do so?
He can’t, because I’m sure all the property deeds carry the same provision that require the “alley” to be kept passable, and even if his didn’t contain it, the easement has certainly been created by over a century of use. There’s a bit of a question as to how much if any “alley” at the top and perpendicular to the driveway is included (though none of that is on the property of the guy who owns half the driveway), but the driveway clearly is included since there would be no way to access the rest of the possible “alley” without it, and also no vehicle access to either of the properties whose deeds I know carry the “passable alley” provision. Like I said, it’s way complicated. I would certainly win if I took the guy to court to force him to repair his retaining wall (the right to lateral support is a well established principle of property law), but it might be more trouble than it’s worth, since he’s a jerk. I’ll wait until something really needs to be done, since perhaps a conflict-free solution will arise by then (like the guy putting the property on the market or wanting some minor zoning variance that the neighbors need to approve).
This is why we have the second amendment.
You, sir, have a logical mind! Courts don’t.
Sorry, but I don’t see the logic in “giving” one day and “denying” the other.
Klein would have used the survey that described the property and the claims made in court to make the ruling, which is final. Klein’s saying his ruling was correct and acknowledging it’s final. The Kirlins can appeal. McLean can’t.
No matter how much dumb stuff happens, it’s threads like this that keep me coming back for more. :D
Yep. Kinda makes one wonder if they worded it that way on purpose.
A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924861/posts
Retired judge: This land is my land (Jurist rules in favor of colleague, snatches $1 million parcel)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925997/posts
Land Lost After Boulder Couple Failed To Use It
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1926521/posts
Panel won’t probe Boulder land ruling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929194/posts
Second ex-Boulder judge at center of a land-claim case ( adverse possession claim )
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1931843/posts
RTD land grab raises hackles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934047/posts?page=15
A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924861/posts
Retired judge: This land is my land (Jurist rules in favor of colleague, snatches $1 million parcel)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925997/posts
Land Lost After Boulder Couple Failed To Use It
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1926521/posts
Panel won’t probe Boulder land ruling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929194/posts
Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
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.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/25/paths-never-crossed-families-in-land-battle-both/
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.