Government of, by and for the Privileged

11/25/07 | joanie-f

[Iwo Jima]

For the last 20 years, did the Kirlins ever set foot on the property? If not, why not? If so, did they see the uses that the Mcleans were putting to the property? If so, what if anything did they do about it? If not, why not?

[Iwo Jima]

Perjury is the sole basis of claim here

Why do you say this? What testimony was perjured? And how do you know that?
and personal favor and bias the basis of judicial action.

Why do you say this? What testimony was perjured? And how do you know that?

What do you think that they judge did that was wrong?

[Iwo Jima]

People buy land everyday in this nation and leave it vacant for years.

And if another person uses it openly and adversely for the statutory period of time, they will lose title. It's the law.

[wtc911]

I do not believe many of us are familiar with the concept of 'adverse possession', but I suspect that it has to do with land that has been neglected.

_______________________________________

Not so. Even in suburbia if your neighbors use part of your yard to park their cars or build a bbq pit or flower garden without your expressed permission and without your expressed protest then you may one day find yourself having to give up that piece of your lot to them.

[Iwo Jima]

Are you saying there was no such testimony by the HOA neighbor or plaintiff witness?

I have not seen a transcript but I read the court's judgment and findings of fact and conclusions of law. The evidence supporting the platinffs was substantial. The Kirlins' evidence was weak. The judgment appears well founded.

IIRC, these people who are now coming forward with "evidence" were not witnesses. The judge had to make his decision based on the evidence at trial -- not what people might come forward to say a month later.

[Cvengr]

IMHO, if the case had been one of adverse possession, then the judge should have been paying property taxes on the land for the past 20 years. Since he hasn’t, shouldn’t the IRS be investigating him for tax evasion?

[Iwo Jima]

They have obviously awakened to McLean's and Stevens' motives and tactics and have now filed an appeal, but they were not on the ball at the outset of this. It appears that they were hit broadside.

Did they have a lawyer?

It sounds that they were as neglectful of the lawsuit as they were of their property, and so they have lost both.

A judgment based on a trial to the court not a jury is just about the hardest thing to get overturned. Based on what we know, I give this judgment a 90% chance of standing on appeal.

I can't think what the grounds for appeal would even be.

[Iwo Jima]

Why do you think that there was corruption in this case?

[wtc911]

Hey I know of some high priced commercial land in my area that the owners have not set foot on in 20 years and no one has improved on it. Now what do you suppose is my odds of moving in taking it from them in court. Not a snownballs chance. One set of rules for thee another set for me right?

_______________________________________________________

If you have been playing softball with your kids or selling lemonade from a stand or growing tomatos on that lot for those twenty years then I'd say your chances of successfully claiming it as yours would be excellent. Use of the land is the point.

[Iwo Jima]

What cronyism do you think was involved in this case? Please let us know what you know and how you learned it.

[cva66snipe]

And if another person uses it openly and adversely for the statutory period of time, they will lose title. It's the law.

In that case we are no longer a nation of laws but of privlidges granted to those who can afford to take others property away. If so then property ownership means zilch and a lot of land speculators holding commerical interset {unattended} should be fair game for Joe Citizen then. Maybe I should go camp out on some. I bet their lawyers {the second oldest profession and most despised due to such deeds as this} would win. There may be a law on the books allowing for stealing of land but that by no means makes it a Constitutional or moral act by any party including our government.

[Iwo Jima]

Adverse possession does not require that the payment of taxes. Who paid the taxes is just about irrelevant. Of course, if the claimant paid the taxes, that would strenghten his claim, but it is not required.

The IRS has nothing to do with property taxes. There is no such thing as "tax evasion" with respect to property taxes.

[Cvengr]

It is interesting to observe those who defend the judge in this situation for it manifests their lack of righteousness.

[Iwo Jima]

It looks like either Susie Kirlin is lying or spunkets is misrepresenting/doesn’t know the contents of the court documents.

Not necessarily. If you read Susie's comments, she never says if these people testified at trial. And, of course, in any trial the factfinder (here, the court) must make decisions based on the evidence at trial, not what appears in the newspaper a month later.

[cva66snipe]

If you have been playing softball with your kids or selling lemonade from a stand or growing tomatos on that lot for those twenty years then I'd say your chances of successfully claiming it as yours would be excellent. Use of the land is the point.

I'd say I wouldn't stand any chance especially if it was a commercial holding by an influential person and we all know there is plenty of that around. In that case vagrants should own many inner city buildings then right? I'm certain they will be glad to hear of their new found fortunes.

As I said this is ridiculous. For over 200 years everyday in this nation persons have bought property and maybe not seen it for over 20 years. It is land they plan to retire to someday. If they pay their land taxes then they are paying for state and county services to that land thus it is maintained and not abandoned. I can not believe some support the stealing of land by others.

[Publius Valerius]

That we even have such a concept of "adverse possession" says volumes about the extreme depth to which this country's legal system has been corrupted.

The doctrine has been around for hundreds of years, and it's frankly good policy. All the rightful owners would had to have done to preserve their title to the land was to commence an ejectment action or a quiet title action against the trespassers. They didn't do that.

Typically society likes to ensure that resources are being put to their best possible use. When land sits vacant for a period of twenty years, well, sorry--time to be a better steward of your stuff.

[Iwo Jima]

Adverse possession has been the law since before this country was founded. It has not been the subject of much abuse or any that I have seen.

Moral of the story: if you do not set foot on your property for 20 years and someone else uses it and takes care of it and improves it for 20 years, you will lose title.

I am fine with that concept and result.

[Iwo Jima]

What did the judge do that was wrong?

[Publius Valerius]

If so, when you purchased it were you advised about “adverse possession”? If not, how exactly were you supposed to know it existed? Were you supposed to divine it?

You don't need to know about the doctrine to know that people are trespassing on your land. If the "owners" would have commenced an ejectment action against the judge during the twenty years during which the judge had openly used the property, then this wouldn't have been an issue, would it?

[Iwo Jima]

Your calm and reasoned response is appreciated. There has been a lot of emotionalism even hysteria on this thread, and unnecessarily so. There was no injustice or outrage here that I can see.