Skip to comments.Panel won't probe Boulder land ruling
Posted on 11/21/2007 8:13:56 PM PST by george76
A judiciary oversight committee has rejected a Boulder couple's request to investigate a neighboring couple who used an arcane legal loophole to take over their property.
The Colorado Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Counsel rejected Don and Susie Kirlin's request to investigate ex-judge and former Boulder mayor Richard McLean and his lawyer wife Edith Stevens, who won a strip of their property on Hardscrabble Drive.
In a letter to the Kirlins, assistant regulation counsel Louise Culberson-Smith said that the McLean and Stevens' use of an "adverse possession claim" to win the land does not constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
McLean and Stevens won a third of a vacant lot that the Kirlins owned for more than 20 years, making it impossible for them to build a dream home they had planned for the site.
The legal doctrine of "adverse possession" lets someone who uses another's property for 18 years without an owner's objection ...
The Kirlins said that McLean and Stevens misused their knowledge of the law by trespassing on their property for years and then arguing that trespass gave them a right to the land.
"In my opinion that is not the way an attorney should use the law. The code of ethics says they will not use their knowledge of the law for personal gain over people that don't have that knowledge," Don Kirlin said Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
Don Kirlin said he doesn’t expect to appeal the decision of the Ethics Review Board, although he will appeal Klein’s ruling...
life on the democrat plantation.
Wars have been started over crap like this.
I am sure they will be very good neighbors after this. McLean and Stevens = scumbags.
Adverse possession is a concept that should hardly be considered arcane. It appears in essentially the same form in each state, though the period of adverse possession required for title to pass varies from state to state.
I have read only this article on the subject - but from the way the paper phrased their use in this article - it would seem that all they gained by adverse possession was an easement to cross the property, not title to the property itself.
ex-judge and former Boulder mayor Richard McLean and his lawyer wife Edith Stevens...
Here is the earlier discussion :
ht to beaversmom
Time to drop off a double wide for rent to some college kids ?
Include a big stero...
He should atleast to have it on record. Or to cause a big stink where they have to return the land to him.
You obviously don’t know real estate law. If someone builds a fences across your property line and you do nothing about it for, oh! Let’s say 15 years.
They can legally claim that you’ve deeded your real rights to that land.
I know. We bought a house on fenced property which had an addition built on it in 1982. We still own the real property. But now the Home Owner Association, which owns the adjoining parcel, is concerned that the fence is inside their property line by 15 feet. Well gosh, it has been 25 years since that addition was approved and 35 years since the original fence was laid out and built, and no one, NO ONE, said a word when notified that an addition was going to be built.
We would have to tear down our family room and move our back fence. But the law about this is very clear. If the owner’s don’t kick the trespassers out after ten years, it belongs to the trespassers.
Too bad, so sad. IT IS THE LAW, folks.
“Time to drop off a double wide for rent to some college kids ?
Include a big ster[e]o...”
either that or fence in the remainder of the property after they first build the biggest little outhouse in Colorado—maybe put a huge ad on the roof, like ‘Here sits Colorado Justice ‘ or “Give me Liberty or Give me Colorado”...
Yeah but the dems love swat teams and the swat teams love the dems.. Waco.. Elian Gonzalez... Ruby Ridge...etc, etc,
You obviously don’t know anything about aerial photos. If the path you say was there for years but suddenly shows up is not on historical aerial photos, then you’re lying.
They’ve gained, or are about to gain, title.
Another judge in Boulder did this same thing a few years back, and got away with it.
This is what happens in a secular society.
“You obviously dont know real estate law. If someone builds a fences across your property line and you do nothing about it for, oh! Lets say 15 years.
They can legally claim that youve deeded your real rights to that land”
Yep, and that is why whenever you have a survey of your land you should always ask to have it show your house and adjoining appurtenances on the survey map..Have seen some very surprising results when that was done-property lines that cut through the house, garage, between house and garage and even showing the house was in two counties with the county line splitting the house; even saw a house situated between two States (NY and Pa)!.... Many surveys only show the boundary lines of the property and may note a right of way or easement and that would not reveal the problems...
Read my post. It has nothing - jack squat - to do with aerial photos.
This is important so take heed: if you own real property and someone is squatting on it, have them expelled IMMEDIATELY! Fence your land, post signs, but make it apparent that your land is not for anyone else’s use but your own.
Don’t let what happened in Colorado happen to you.
The real property laws in this country originated in England. These laws go back almost a century.
Sorry. But God has no interest in owning land. God is omnipotent, immortal, and exists outside of time. I believe he couldn’t care less about real estate, only about our responsible use of freedom.
Sorry, I meant to say “several centuries”.
What’s your point?
Lawyers have a code of ethics?
Thanks for the ping, george
Most people don’t know real estate law. That’s my point.
Fencing property isn’t cheap, but it beats losing it to slick shysters, like those two Democrats in Colorado.
you be series?
Apologies. I thought you were commenting on the case at hand, rather than just blathering (albeit mostly correctly) in general. :-)
In the Colorado case, there's ample evidence--including aerial photos--that this was an improper ruling. And this thread is about how there isn't going to be oversight of the judicial ruler who made a decision in favor of an ex-judge despite evidence against his case. Sounds fishy.
But if you weren't commenting on this case, then I don't understand why you were claiming I didn't know about real estate law... ...especially since I confirmed on the referenced original thread that this doctrine applies in New York State last I knew.
IOW, probably best if you lightened up a bit, FRiend... I do know the case, and even know that you can find some of the records of this land online. Dig a bit in those Boulder County records and there are other questions that appear. :-)
or just start walking on their property
Their code is to protect each other ?
This was on the local news. The property is fenced.
In the older case, it was a rock wall that had been there for nearly 100 years. The judge stole the wall and the ground under it.
There was a big rally there recently. Covered by the Denver TV News...as the ex-judge, ex-mayor and lawyer wife drove off.
This should have some legs , yet.
If the property was fenced and police (or sheriff) regularly enforced the no trespassing on private property, then the case should be a no brainer for the original owner.
I hate most Democrats because they tend to be crooked. It sounds as though the law isn’t being followed, but heh! I’m not familiar with this case. I just quoted what I now from having been licensed in real estate sales in the Pacific Northwest.
The scammers requested title to the property, not just easement to pass.
The ruling went to them despite testimony of neighbors and aerial photos showing no path existed there prior to October 2006.
Multi-state dwellings are surprisingly common, in my experience. Funniest I saw, though, was a house sawn in two and split apart!
More than 200 people protested outside the home of a couple who added more than 1,400 square feet of their neighbors’ land to their own property using a centuries-old legal doctrine.
Some protesters carried signs Sunday outside the home of Richard McLean and Edith Stevens that read, “You’ll never enjoy a stolen view.” Others yelled “shame” and “thief.”
This case is a big thing in Colorado. The discussions among the experts on TV and the radio generally agree that the letter of the law has been followed.
What is in dispute are basically two things, maybe three.
One, are the perps lying about what they did over the years to obtain the adverse posession? Nearly everyone thinks they’ve lied to the court.
Two, has the intent of the law been followed? I’ve not heard even one person agree that it has. Only the letter of the law has been arrived at.
And, maybe three. Did this retired judge get extra, illegal favorable treatment? Answer, unknown at this point.
The Kirlins offered to turn over a 5-foot strip of the property to McLean and Stevens, but the couple turned the offer down, Don Kirlin said.
“I believe his real reason was to take a third of the property and not have a house next door to him,” Don Kirlin said.
Kirlin, a commercial airline pilot, plans to appeal the decision.
McLean, a former RTD board member...
If the ex-judge and his lawyer get the land, the people who own the rest of the parcel have several options.
But the only one I would consider is to establish some kind of business suitable for current zoning that is irritating to neighbors. Like storage of wrecked automobiles, or landscaping equipment storage and maintenance of compost bins (real smelly on hot days). Or better yet, a dog kennel - nicely noisy. I certainly would make an effort to find something to make those neighbors miserable.
Has the letter of the law been met? Adverse possession requires that the possession (for 18 years, in Colorado) be “open and notorious” and “exclusive.” I’ve yet to see any indication that either of those conditions were met.
I believe his real reason was to take a third of the property and not have a house next door to him, Don Kirlin said.
The judges who heard the casees were of a different opinion than you, and had the power to put their opinions into effect.
I can’t imagine that at least this lastest case won’t be overturned, but it’s going to take a long while.
The older case, which was decided a few years back, went on for five or six years in the courts.
Both are a travisty of jusice, and I’d like to discuss it further, but there is a very nice parcel of land adjioning my property to the east, and we as a family are going out to establish a trail, maybe even erect a tent ............................ Gotta run!
“Some men rob you with a six gun and some men rob you with a fountain pen....”
— Woody Guthrie
A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
Retired judge: This land is my land (Jurist rules in favor of colleague, snatches $1 million parcel)
Land Lost After Boulder Couple Failed To Use It
Panel wont probe Boulder land ruling
Former Boulder District Judge, Boulder Mayor, RTD board member - among other elected positions - Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens, used an arcane common law called “adverse possession” to claim the land for their own.
All McLean needed was to develop an “attachment” to it.
Undoubtedly, his city connections couldn’t have hurt, either.
In the court papers, McLean and his family admit to regularly trespassing on the Kirlins’ property.
They created paths. They said they put on a political fundraiser and parties on it (though not a single photograph of these events surfaced in court documents).
How did the Kirlins learn this travesty was afoot? Susie Kirlin was warned about it at a Boulder High School football game. Be cautious, her neighbor warned, someone has designs on your property.
“I laughed when I first heard it. I really didn’t know that anyone had an emotional attachment to our land,” Kirlin tells me. “I was quite surprised. I was even more surprised that someone could claim our land. But my neighbor told me this was a well- connected person and I should take it seriously.”
When the couple began building a fence on the land - which is within Boulder city limits, not out in the wilderness - McLean was able, according to the Kirlins, to obtain a restraining order in an exceptionally speedy 2 1/2 hours.
Boulder District Judge Morris Sandstead, who served with McLean, issued the restraining order quite swiftly.
Serendipity, I guess.
Hard feelings on Hardscrabble Drive
Land ruling protest draws hundreds
Several protesters yelled “shame”and “thief” at McLean and Stevens as they drove away from their home shortly before the rally began at noon.
One woman stepped up to the car’s passenger side window and yelled, “How can you live with yourself?”
on the radio talk show hosted by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman on Denver’s KHOW radio.
On the radio show Kirlin explained his shock when the land on which he’s paid taxes of about $16,000 a year, plus $65 per month homeowner association dues, on which he’s sprayed for weeds and repaired fences, suddenly was made unusable by Klein’s decision.
During the trial McLean testified he had worn a path 20 feet onto Kirlin’s land to obtain access to his backyard, but Kirlin, a former member of the homeowners’ association board and the HOA manager testified that was incorrect.
Richard McLean says that he held political parties on his neighbor’s land. Interesting if any pictures show up to validate this claim.
None apparently so far in the court documents.
A year ago, we decided to construct a fence, in accordance with our HOA guidelines, as we had been warned by another neighbor that former judge Richard McLean and Edie Stevens, another lawyer, were planning to file this "adverse possession" claim (a land-grabbing technique). It was shortly after that time that paths started to appear on our property. McLean and Stevens were unable to provide any photographs of any paths existing prior to one year ago, even though they claimed these paths were obvious for more than 18 years.
Prior to trial, we tried to accommodate their requests for access to the rear of their house from the western side (though they already had access). We offered to build steps, and were even willing to offer them a small portion of our land to facilitate their needs. They declined all of this. Their objective appeared to be to take away a large portion (34 percent) of our lot, so as to render it un-build able, unusable and worthless on the open market, which is what they accomplished with Judge Klein's assistance.
Since 1984, we have paid taxes, homeowners' dues, complied with our HOA requests for fence maintenance, and city of Boulder requests for weed control. We walked by at least once a week and never saw any indication that the neighbors were using it, much less making a hostile claim to our property. How would you feel, if under these circumstances, someone took your property?
Is it right, moral or ethical that a Boulder judge award a former Boulder judge our property, when in fact they had no photographs or proof of the alleged paths for the past 18 years? In Judge Klein's order, he states "Plaintiffs' attachment to the land is stronger than the true owners' attachment." Oh really? We don't think so!
DON and SUSIE KIRLIN
This is what I am hearing too :
” McLean and Stevens were unable to provide any photographs of any paths existing prior to one year ago, even though they claimed these paths were obvious for more than 18 years.”
I think it is the easement too. I think also ANY TIME during those 18 years they could have blockaded the property or at least sent a letter advising them they were not to tresspass.
ANYTHING TO SAY the tresspass was known and not welcome.
People forget the key to adverse possession is INACTION by the owner.
I think you need to translate for those in rio linda:
“You snooze, you lose.”
(we still don’t know if it is an easment or the actual land given)
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.