Posted on 11/12/2007 6:44:32 PM PST by beaversmom
Edited on 11/15/2007 7:42:04 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Welcome to the USSA, comrade.
You must learn to love Big Sister.
Sounds like an underhanded thing to do.
Off topic, but I wonder why the judge and lawyer don’t have the same last name if they are married.
Adverse posession—a hard thing to win, and usually just for things like easements . Stange judge.
Is there any appeal on this sort of thing?
Forget it, Jake. It’s Boulder.
The rightful land owner was on local radio tonight. I believe they are appealing, but he has been told that he probably won’t win. Also, he has spent $100 thousand dollars+ already. If he does win, he will end up spending a lot of money for property that is his. Also, the judge and his wife are suing the rightful land owners for court costs.
I presume they will appeal this? Should be overturned on appeal?
Back in the US,
back in the US,
back in the USSR!
Hmmm . . .here in Florida, people buy lots to build and retire on years before they actually do all the time. Wonder what would happen to lot sales if squatters took them to court over their land?
I would sure sue the heck out of that judge; lawyer and whoever else. This is so underhanded; they can’t find a rock to get under. What seems to be the law they used. I guess I didn’t understand that. If it is using the property; then I would charge them additionaly for trespassing.
They tried it in CA with us; but it didn’t work. Our boundary or easement has been disputed many times over the years. Our lawyer pointed out they didn’t own the land period.
My husband says they need to build a yurt on what is left of their land and advertise to all the bums and hippies on Pearl Street Mall about free lodging.
vaudine
IMHO, the neighbors may have a prescriptive right for an access easement (open and notorious use for 5 years), but they should have no fee simple rights.
I’ll say it’s abuse by the Court of the adverse possession doctrine. The purpose of the doctrine is to “quiet title,” so that easements can be esatablished or small disputes decided.
It was not intended for wholesale transfer of property rights as evidently happened here!
Local radio guy Dan Caplis (lawyer himself) said tonight that they are Dems—natch.
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.