Boulder courts see influx of adverse-possession cases

Daily Camera ^ | July 6, 2008 | Heath Urie

[george76]

Seems like you can't throw a stone without hitting a crooked lawyer in Boulder.

ht comments

[whipitgood]

Or a liberal!!

[DManA]

I have never understood the rational behind adverse possession. Was there some good reason for it in olden days? It just seems nuts to me.

[pnh102]

At least the state changed the law to prevent more of these cases.

[steve-b]

The rationale is to insure that property ownership matters are settled and that someone can't come out of nowhere claiming some hitherto-unknown musty old title to a piece of property that, as far as anybody knows, is open land that you moved onto and developed.

[DManA]

Isn’t adverse-possession where a property claim is CREATED out of thin air by trespassing long enough?

[Philly Nomad]

Well it also comes out of the old English law tradition of “Use it or lose it.”

[george76]

Liberals suing liberals.

[DManA]

Very libertarian concept then.

[tumblindice]

Record title is the highest form of title and is not easily defeated, but `the law favors the man with the hoe’.
If a claimant can show with clear and convincing evidence his open, notorious, actual, continuous, hostile and exclusive use of land—all of the preceding elements—adverse to the record title owner’s use, for the requisite period of time, then he will be held to have acquired title by prescription, or by adverse posssession.
I believe that’s the law in most states.

[george76]

Kirlin said he thinks adverse possession... was designed as a “shield to protect the innocent, as opposed to a sword for opportunistic individuals to take advantage of their neighbors.”

[weegee]

Sounds like the same principle by which you forfeit your possessions held in a security box because even though you pay for the storage, you haven’t opened the box in years.

If the taxes are delinquent, then the property can be seized and SOLD. Anything else is justifying the practice of “squatters’ rights”.

Squatting is a big problem in Europe (people can move into your vacant building rent free and you can have a hard time kicking them out).

[Balding_Eagle]

Seems like you can't throw a stone without hitting a crooked lawyer in Boulder.

Up until now, both Boulder cases originated with crooked judges, not crooked lawyers.

[george76]

Retired judge, ex-mayor, ex-RTA Board member Richard McLean and his wife, Edith Stevens are both lawyers.

[Lancey Howard]

No. Crooked judges AND crooked lawyers.

[jazusamo]

The shyster lawywers and judge used that law as a method of legalized theft in McLean and Stevens vs their neighbor, glad to see this law being changed.

McLean and his wife may revel in their victory but they’re still, and always will be, theives!

[jazusamo]

theives = thieves

[mallardx]

Edith Stevens is former chair of the Boulder County Democratic party. ‘Nuff said there.

Boulder has seen an influx of wealthy East and West Coasters, buying properties and driving them into the $2-22 million range, and they all clamor over who can post the most Obama signs on their lawns!

[jackibutterfly]

Isn’t trespassing against the law? How, then, can one be rewarded for doing something against the law? I know, I know, it’s a silly question.

[radioman]

At least the state changed the law to prevent more of these cases.
And made it harder to protect your right of way. I used adverse possession against an heir to my neighbor who tried to fence in my right of way so that he could sub divide. The road was built by me and the jerk's grandpa and used by both of us and many others in the community.