Posted on 12/24/2007 9:57:15 AM PST by george76
The Boulder couple who successfully sued for part of their neighbors' land mailed a letter this week to "those who have supported us," saying they hoped to restore peace in their neighborhood.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, plaintiffs in the controversial adverse-possession case against Don and Susie Kirlin, spelled out their side of the story in the four-page letter -- obtained by the Camera from a recipient who wished to remain anonymous.
"We still hope that we can reconcile our differences with the Kirlins and restore peace in our neighborhood and community," McLean and Stevens wrote.
Contacted at her home on Hardscrabble Drive, Stevens said the letter was meant as a private communication with friends. She objected to the Camera publishing its contents,citing the ongoing legal case.
The Kirlins say they plan to appeal a Boulder judge's October ruling that McLean and Stevens should be awarded about a third of one of the Kirlins' two vacant lots next door. McLean and Stevens used the legal doctrine of adverse possession to successfully claim they cared more for the land than its owners did.
Susie Kirlin said Saturday that she disagrees with nearly all the points made in the letter.
"This is obviously an attempt to justify taking their neighbors' land," Susie Kirlin said. "We obviously disagree with many, if not all, of their misrepresentations. The bottom line is they took something that didn't belong to them, got caught, and are now trying to justify their behavior."
Since the story became public, McLean and Stevens have become the targets of protesters and others who think the couple used their legal knowledge to steal a prime piece of real estate...
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
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
Judge Denies Couple’s Request For 9 More Inches
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935434/posts
effem
Have not seen much.
Who in the heck are their supporters anyway?
From “The Law Defends Plunder”....
...Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.
This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations — and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.
More here...
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1415
Thanks for the ping, george. Thanks to FReeper raygun for the link.
Outstanding FReeper comments! BTTT!
“The people in Boulder and surrounding areas are pretty ticked about this out and out robbery.”
Of course. It might be them next.
Don’t live next to a judge or ex-judge in Boulder that’s for sure.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens also PO’ed their HOA ...as well as their neighbors.
Yes, there was a brick are rock wall that everyone assumed was the property line for all these years. It wasn't but had been there long enough to meet the legal requirements to establish a new line. Some people just want to be in the pitch fork crowd.
Of course, there are some people who idolize crooks. Why do you think the Clintons are so popular?
Yes, there was a brick are rock wall that everyone assumed was the property line for all these years. It wasn't but had been there long enough to meet the legal requirements to establish a new line. Some people just want to be in the pitch fork crowd.
Wrong, the legal qualifications were not met. You are citing an earlier, completely different case.
Kinda like my first x-wife; “Well, I got everything I wanted so I guess we can be friends now”..;’}
Where did you get your degree in real estate??? The Judge said they were met, file an appeal are get off of it.
Any lawyer who wonders why there is so little respect for their profession and the judicial system should read this. Unbelievable!
What about common decency? If your using something that does not belong to you and the person who paid for it wants it you give it back and thank them for allowing you to use it.
It's a quirky part of the law, not unique to Colorado, that many have used to acquire real estate for centuries. One common example is if you use part of someone's property to get to your property for a long period of time (and they don't try to stop you), you can often lay claim to the property. If the plaintiffs met the requirements, it's tough toenails. If they didn't and we have a dishonest judge, that's a different story.
Who in the heck are their supporters anyway?
This was not the brick wall to which you referred in post #29, and thus this not the same case.
...McLean and his wife filed for a temporary restraining order. Then they filed a lawsuit under the doctrine of adverse possession, which says a person can gain possession of property after using it without a challenge by the owner for a certain period. In Colorado, the time frame is 18 years."
The basis for McLean's suit was an alleged footpath which allowed access and passage for the guests to their many social functions/parties. They claimed that the footpath met the requirements, but aerial photos showed that the footpath was recent and had not been there anywhere near 18 years. McLean and his wife are simply lying, and they're getting away with it due to their corrupt political and legal connections.
re:Where did you get your degree in real estate??? The Judge said they were met, file an appeal are get off of it.
Arrogance and ignorance are poor substitutes for facts and logic, especially when coupled with a complete disdain for any semblance of justice.
As a real estate developer, I'm familiar with the law. My point is, just because the law exists doesn't mean it's just and anyone who would take something that doesn't belong to them using this law has no decency.
I really doubt our Saviour who's birthday we celebrate tomorrow knows these people who have done such a despicable thing.
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.