Boulder Judges Making Habit of Grabbing Their Neighbors' Land?

My Fox Colorado ^ | November 21, 2007 | CHARLIE BRENNAN

[Sue Bob]

BOULDER -- The "adverse possession" case through which retired Boulder judge Richard McLean was able to grab a swath of land on a neighbor's vacant lot triggering cries of protest by people who don't know any parties involved is not the first time a former Boulder judge has used the law against a neighbor.

Former Boulder County Judge Marsha Yeager, whose tenure on the Boulder County bench overlapped that of McLean, filed a successful "adverse possession" case against her neighbor in 2002.

--snip--

In Yeager's case, she filed suit against the family of Cosima Krueger-Cunningham, to settle ownership of a one-foot high, one-foot wide stone wall dividing their two Boulder residences.

Yeager, her spouse is a lawyer, just as is the case with McLean, lives at 963 7th Street, while Krueger-Cunningham live at 977 7th Street.

"My family has lived here since 1950, so that's what, 57 years," said Krueger-Cunningham, who grew up at 977 7th St.

"We have a long history with that wall. I have many childhood memories with that wall, of playing on the wall with my friends. My parents always assumed it was their wall. "It's been a nightmare."

When she heard that Yeager was using something called "adverse possession" to claim ownership of t he wall and thereby move the property line dividing their properties roughly one foot in Krueger-Cunningham's direction, she said, "I didn't really understand what it was all about."

--snip--

It was intimidating, said Krueger-Cunningham, to be sued by a former judge - one who is married to a lawyer, no less.

"I feel that she was at a distinct advantage, in that she had been on the bench for I don't know how many years. She obviously, you know, was well known to people in the judicial system."

[Sue Bob]

Something is rotten in Boulder.

[sionnsar]

Yah. Judges.

[Clintonfatigued]

Can’t the judge be impeached?

[passionfruit]

“When she heard that Yeager was using something called “adverse possession” to claim ownership of t he wall and thereby move the property line dividing their properties roughly one foot in Krueger-Cunningham’s direction, she said, “I didn’t really understand what it was all about.” “

The lawyers and judges here are using little known laws to take land from honest citizens that don’t even know their land ownership is at risk.

The moral of this story is that if you have a lawyer or judge living next door, and you live in Boulder, either run the scum off, or move.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yep. Happy Thanksgiving, Sionnsar!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Actually adverse3 possession is a well known term among anyone in real estate. It basically means that if you can move in on someone's land and openly live there for a number of years without that person taking legal action to remove you, you can sue in court to just take the land. In this case her family "assumed" they owned the wall, trimmed the grass along the wall, and did all the things the owner should have been doing in maintenance of the wall. It ain't right, but it is the law.

[dalereed]

“Something is rotten in Boulder.”

The whole ultra liberal city is rotten!

[jude24]

Adverse possession is pretty well known amongst non-lawyers in general. When I was studying for the bar, one of my friends was asking what I was studying, and when I explained adverse possession, he immediately understood, "Oh! Squatter's rights!"

[Sue Bob]

So, if I trim my grass on my property beside a neighbor’s fence—or fix a few rocks on my side, I can claim that his entire fence is mine? I’d like to know more about the evidence in this case. I’m not sure how a non-owner can prove notorious (including exclusive), hostile and continuous use of a rock wall which serves as a dividing line between properties. The public policy behind adverse possession is to ensure efficient use of land. I don’t understand how an ancient wall fits in here.

Also, given modern platting, how could a judge—who surely knows about official surveys, “mistake” the wall as hers? And, once finding out she’s wrong, what is the moral caliber of a Judge who grabs land under the law from her neighbor. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe utilizes the courts to grab land from white farmers. Just because it may be legal, doesn’t make it moral.

Regardless, it is unseemly in the least for a sitting judge to get involved in such a land grab when there surely existed objective evidence of property lines. Subjecting her neighbor to a process dominated by the judge’s own colleagues gives all sorts of appearances of impropriety.

[jdub]

what did he do to actually adversely posess the wall?

[Sue Bob]

That’s what I can’t figure out from the story. How do you adversely possess a dividing wall between property?

[jdub]

what they should have done was to claim that they gave the judge permission to use the wall. However this case looks to me like one judge ruling for another judge rather than being decided on the merits. the way the facts look to me there is no possible way that the party that lost could have actually discovered the adverse possession.

[sionnsar]

And a Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

[Wolfie]

And they’ll keep it up until the costs outweigh the benefits.

[knpriestap]

Adverse possession has been on the books forever. It's one of the first things law students learn in law school, according to my husband. It only applies to property, however, and the use of that property must have been for more than 21 years. So, for 50 years, the Yeager family took care of a wall on the neighbors' property but the neighbors said nothing. If before 21 years had passed the neighbors had written a letter to the Yeagers stating that they were allowing the Yeagers to use and take care of the wall that was on their property, then all this could have been avoided.

[hellbender]

I would be tempted to retaliate. Start trespassing, littering, spraying graffiti on the wall, walking the dog on the land, etc. Assert one’s own “adverse possession.” Of course, it would doubtless turn out that we peons can’t get away with what a judge can.

[padre35]

And the judges deny justice to their victims...

[hellbender]

I think if you want to be protected against this racket, you should at least post "no trespassing" signs on the edge of your property.

It's not just outright loss of ownership, either. If you allow someone to walk or drive across your land, after umpteen years they acquire a legal right of way there.

[eeevil conservative]

I won’t pretend to know the legalities or the details of this case

but I hope judges across America start to feel the heat of the ridiculous mess they have made of our Constitution

[hellbender]

Just guessing, but I wonder if this doctrine didn’t arise in common law to keep peasants (e.g.) from being evicted from hovels they had inhabited for ages on a corner of some lord’s estate. If so, its intent is being flouted, because now it is our elites who are using this trick to seize “peasants’” land.