[meadsjn]

From some of the articles posted here, the owner did regularly visit the property to trim weeds and maintain fences. IMO, those actions would qualify as "intervening tenancy".

Below are a couple of excerpts from the 2007 Colorado Real Estate Manual. Granted, the CRS probably contains more on the topic than gets included in the CREM, but from what I've seen, this case is a crock.

---

Colorado Real Estate Manual - Glossary

adverse possession. the right of an occupant of land to acquire a superior title to the real estate against the record owner, where such possession has been actual, notorious, hostile, visible and continuous for the required statutory period (18 years in Colorado). Adverse possession promotes the productive use of land by giving title to the one putting the land to use.

Colorado Real Estate Manual - Chapter 6: Interests in Land History, - Pg. 6-8

VII. Adverse Possession

Adverse possession is the right of an occupant of land to acquire superior title against the owner of record without the owner’s concurrence, provided the occupancy has been actual, notorious, hostile, visible, and continuous for a required statutory period. This right of adverse possession can be inherited, but there can be no intervening tenancy.
In Colorado the required adverse possession statutory periods are:

1. 18 years – without the consent of the owner of record, without color of title or payment of property taxes. (38-41-101 C.R.S.)

2. 7 years – with color of title and/or with payment of seven years of property taxes. (38-41-108 C.R.S.)

---

[spunkets]

"From some of the articles posted here, the owner did regularly visit the property to trim weeds and maintain fences. IMO, those actions would qualify as "intervening tenancy"."

There were no fences. The Kirlins didn't think fence, until it was way too late. They were also unable to provide any witnesses that they did anything on the property in question in court. The neighbors who were in present and lived adjacent to the property testified that they frequently saw the judge doing work on the property in question all those years.

the judge mowed the lawn out there all the time and the Kirlins never thought twice about it. They didn't say anything. They blew it. BTW, intervening tenancy refers to intervening ownership only.