Posted on 05/05/2008 12:05:06 PM PDT by george76
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens did not fabricate evidence or lie to win their controversial land case against neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin, District Judge James C. Klein ruled today.
Klein’s order essentially upholds his decision last fall to award about 34 percent of one of the Kirlins’ vacant lots to McLean and Stevens after they sued for it using the squatter’s-rights law of “adverse possession.”
The Kirlins had filed paperwork earlier this year alleging that McLean, a former district court judge, and Stevens, an attorney, faked evidence of a dirt path across the Kirlins’ property and lied about using it for more than two decades.
The couple argued that Klein should overturn the original trial decision after providing a package of “new evidence” that included eyewitness testimony and a series of aerial photos of the disputed property.
Klein, however, disagreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
Thanks for the update. Of course, if he overturned his own ruling he would look like the flaming idiot he is. Open and notorious corruption, I call it!
This is typical “Black Collar Crime.”
Yes, deeply so. Property rights, and their protection are one of conservatives primary issues. This is also of interest due to the Black Collar Crime aspect.
Fraud and corruption go back even further.
I still haven't heard anyone give me an answer regarding my observation that the "18-year-old path" bends around a tree that appears less than 18 years old.
But of course, the evidence was strongly against McLean/Stevens and it didn't matter--this was decided in contradiction to the evidence.
He had the opportunity to look at the rather clear evidence that had not been available earlier, and overturn his own ruling—if he were honest. Now, he shows he’s not.
The judge’s ruling pointed out errors in the appeal that was filed, showing a 2003 photograph that had the path but was mislabeled, etc. This gave the judge cover for saying that the Kirlins were trying to mislead the court.
I think the Kirlins had a poor attorney and didn’t present a very good case. When I looked at their filings before, they were not very well done. I wish I could have helped out, but I’m across the country. :-(
I am a lawyer. States have different requirements. I’m not sure what it is in CO, but you’ve got to have a “claim of right.” What that means is different in each state.
Are you a land-use lawyer?
As for adverse possession laws differing in each state, I was actually struck by how similar each state's laws were when I researched this some years ago.
The main difference in state laws is how much time is required for a claim. IIRC in some states it's as little as 5 yrs, in some it's 10 or 15, and in my state it was 25 yrs.
Only Louisiana was significantly different from other states, IIRC. (Louisiana law, being based on Napoleonic Code rather than Anglo-Saxon common law, doesn't recognize the doctrine of adverse possession.)
In any case, what I was refuting was your statement that claimants must believe the property belonged to them, in order to make a valid claim of adverse possession.
That is completely the opposite of the truth, to my knowledge --and it would not make sense in the context of adverse possession doctrine.
If you can find a state where what you claimed is true, then please post it here.
No. The Kirlins paid taxes on the land.
I know this seems counter-intuitive, but the fact that McLean/Stevens did not pay taxes on the land is not a bar to their claim of adverse possession. It actually enhances their claim, under the law.
If someone wants to argue that your piece of land is actually two plots and you haven't been to the back in a while, that smells fishy.
The Kirlins' property IS two adjacent lots. That was never in dispute.
Keep in mind that the strip of land that McClean/Stevens acquired by adverse possession is a 10-foot wide strip -- NOT the entire lot. The Kirlins still own one entire lot (the one on which they claimed they intended to build). They also still own most of their other lot, the one which is immediately adjacent to McLean/Stevesn.
Re my post 40, I meant to post “Anglo-American common law” (not “Anglo-Saxon”).
I kind of stuck my neck out when I made that statement. There are some states that say you’ve got to think it’s your property. Most, I suppose, require something less. Here in Florida, for example, it is very hard to get adverse possession. You usually have to be paying taxes on the property, and obviously, you don’t pay taxes on it unless you think it’s yours.
But I don’t think justice is done by awarding relief in this instance, where the neighbors were simply trying to steal the property. I don’t think that cutting across the property is enough to establish adverse possession. I don’t even think I’d give them a perscriptive easement of access across the property for just that. The judge in this case was clearly trying to find a way to rule in their favor. If I’d been the judge, I would have said prove to me that it was you who wore this trail across the property. And then when they testified, I’d discount their testimony because it was self serving. I’d say prove to me that you did it for the entire prescriptive period.
This is the kind of case that Abraham Lincoln warned about—a result of a litigious society. If the courts are going to uphold this kind of thing on a regular basis, our property rights will soon become a thing of the past. What they have in Panama is a good example of what we can expect. There, you pretty much have to fence in your property from squatters, or you’ve got nothing.
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.