Posted on 11/21/2007 8:13:56 PM PST by george76
Very interesting.
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.”
http://www.denverpost.com/boulder/ci_7508274
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...
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7494276?source=rss
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
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.