Posted on 11/25/2007 6:31:07 PM PST by joanie-f
Reading some of the other comments on other threads and topics, I can only say I've never seen people so made before. I truly hope the gummint comes to its senses.
That is only a codification of standards of evidence, which in this case were ignored completely. Perjury is the sole basis of claim here, and personal favor and bias the basis of judicial action.
~ joanie
I keep waiting for ‘objectivity’ before I write it...hasn’t happened yet! lol
And I don't suppose it will. :)
Most of us never reach the point of 'objectivity' concerning such emotionally-charged injustice.
If you ever do write your story, though, please be sure to ping me to it.
~ joanie
Google has Items (1) and (2) below in the above link:
(1)
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page:
http boulderdude files wordpress com 2007 11 order1 pdf
________________________________________________________
(2)
Page 1
EFILED Document
CO Boulder County District Court 20th JD
Filing Date: Oct 17 2007 6:04PM MDT
Filing ID: 16718877
Review Clerk: N/A
________________________________________________________
Colorado Judicial Branch - 20th Judicial District
Home page for the "Colorado Judicial Branch - 20th Judicial District".
________________________________________________________
Perhaps this will help someone find the Court document.
The path is good enough, but this judge had landscaped the neighbor's property also, and the surrounding neighbors had noted he did so for over 20 years. The neighbors testified that they thought it was the judges land, because he was frequently seen there doing work. There was also mention of the judge maintaining some wall there.
A building would have made this case easy. As far as fences go, if everyone thinks it's on a property line, and it's not, it will likely generate a loss for someone. Anyone can place a fence anywhere on their property. For instance an animal fence might be placed within someone's property. If the neighbor assumes use of the other side of the fence and the property owner doesn't say anything about it for ~20yrs, the user can claim the land. Use means he could have planted trees, or flowers. The neighbor could also put a fence, or decoration, such as near a driveway, then claim the land to the decoration after the statutory time.
It's always good to know exactly where the boundaries are, and check any surveys with simple tools. Then don't allow folks to use the land, unless they're good buddies, or a contract for rent exists. $1 is good enough to protect the owner's interest against this sort of loss, but that opens one up to other risks. Local layers should always be consulted. ie. If you grant permission to someone to grab some sagebrush of your land and they trip and split heir head open, the grieving wife can sue for damages. If the sagebrush picking goes on long enough, they can get an easement, and if they do grooming/landscaping they can claim the land.(if no rents)
Yeah, it does-in all states. I posted the relevant link on CO's statute in #98. It's CO:38-41-101->102, assuming the owner has clear title.
"No, it's a case of perjury, and a dishonest jurist, pure and simple."
Only according to the Kirlins, who testified in court they were absentee owners and knew nothing about what went on on their own land. I read the court doc. The allegations being made on this thread are bogus. This was a simple adverse possession case and the Kirlins did absolutely nothing to prevent it for more than 20 years.
My understanding of where the law comes from is when one property owner(A) gives an adjoining property owner(B) permission to cross his land. Property owner(B) uses this right of access to establish regular entry. The Court can decide that after a sufficient time period property owner(B) cannot be forbidden this access.
To make this more logical. Rancher(A) gives Rancher(B) permission to drive his haybaler across Rancher(A)’s pasture because the normal access to Rancher(B)’s pasture is not suitable for heavy equipment.
Rancher(B) uses this access for years without any problems. Then Rancher(A) sells the land to a building contractor. The building contractor doesn’t know about the previous agreement between the ranchers. He puts up a construction fence blocking Rancher(B)’s access to his pasture to bale the hay. Rancher(B) goes to Court to ask the judge to grant him access because that entryway is the only way he can gather his hay.
Solution: If you grant someone access across your land, lease the access with an annual contract. If you catch someone on your property, file a police report expressing your denial of free access to all violaters. The cops may tell you to post signs.....DO IT!
#84 doesn't apply. See #98. #84 only applies to a case where there is no clear title to begin with, such that 2 parties have registered deeds in the Co. recorder's office.
"I don't believe that McLean or Stevens have 'maintained' the land, nor have they paid a cent in taxes,"
They landscaped it for over 20 years, and used it as if it was their own. They weren't required to pay any taxes whatsoever on the property. All that was required was that they used it. See#98.
"the fact that they may lose the natural view from the side window of their home does not take precedence over their neighbors' property rights."
The law expects landowners to take care of their property. That includes taking the time and effort to make sure no one uses it openly and notoriously as if it were their own. The court docs show that the Kirlins didn't take that care and were absent for over 20 years.
What you described happened to a neighbor here in Eureka Ca 35 years ago. The county realigned a stretch of road and cut off about an acre. The property owner across the road started to pay taxes on that piece and it was soon his...
BS. I gave the statute and the link to it. The standard of evidence in this and all civil cases is a preponderance of evidence. The judge had more than enough. The neighbors thought the land was his, and testified they saw him out there working frequently over those 20 years.
"Perjury is the sole basis of claim here, and personal favor and bias the basis of judicial action."
BS. You don't know a damn thing about the case.
The court's order is laughable in its open prejudice; like many corrupt small-minded chiselers, this court plays "where's the pea" with justice, merely by 'finding' the witnesses for the favored side credible (even when contrary to the stated findings), 'finding' the witnesses for the disfavored side not credible, and ignoring any and all evidence that does not comport with the pre-ordained outcome. But this sort of power play is, given the publicity, in all liklihood too raw for the appellate court to uphold. But go right ahead and defend these scum...your evident lack of ethical standards will never pass muster with the decent folks on FR.
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
“CO:38-41-101->102”
Lex mala, lex nulla.
It is? Of course you read it, right? Where is it?
eminent domain is a part of our history. how would highways, railways, dams, etc. be built without it? as long as a “fair” market price is paid, we have recognized in our history a need for such a practice.
Thanks. That’s from the link to the court doc that’s n/g anymore. The CO court system wants $s for it.
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.