Replies

This is not basic real estate law in America. it is much older than that. These laws have their roots in squatters rights and in providing access/easements through property. They were never intended or meant to allow people to simply take the legal property of others under the guise and color of law.

Particularly when a officer or former officer of the court himself uses it in such a fashion for complete and abject self-interest. This man is a former judge (and mayor I believe), his wife is a current lawyer. One of their colleagues ruled on the case.

Yes : Ex-mayor, ex-judge, ex-RTA board member, ex-Democrat Party leader...plus his wife is a lawyer .

Their friend, another judge, should have recused himself on the ethical complaint.

There are appeals in the works and hopefully the feds will get a call. The governor is part of the problem, so would likely cover for his friend, too.

Jeff, as I said to spunkets previously, this article states that more than two hundred of the Kirlins' neighbors threw a party in support of the Kirlins. The contained video also shows several of them exhibiting an aerial photograph of the land, taken in 2006, which exhibits none of the 'paths' that McLean and Stevens claim had been worn in the land through twenty years of use. The entire video, including the neighbors' obvious support of the Kirlins, is very telling.

When Kirlin asked McLean why he was attempting to take a part of his land, Kirlin says that he responded that he needed room on the side of his house for ‘access to his back patio’. When Kirlin offered to give McLean five feet of his property for that purpose, Kirlin says that he was told that wasn’t enough. The amount of property that McLean wants is one-third of Kirlin’s land, which will render the remaining two-thirds too small to legally build on. McLean’s motives are transparent.

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. This land obviosly does not fall under that umbrella, and I suspect that, since they live just down the road, the Kirlins simply allowed McLean and Stevens to use that corner of their property (but certainly not for twenty years) simply because they did not want to create hard feelings, and they certainly did not expect this result.

Whatever the intent of 'adverse possession', this ruling is immoral and can be defined as nothing more than theft. The Kirlins faithfully paid taxes on this land for twenty years, and, if the ruling stands, McLean and Stevens will receive one-third of it at no cost to them. The ruling must be overturned, and the judge and the thieves prosecuted.

~ joanie

They were never intended or meant to allow people to simply take the legal property of others under the guise and color of law.

That was exactly the purpose of it. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a scare resource--land--is actually used for a beneficial purpose. Here, the owners sat on their thumbs for twenty years while someone else used the land. Guess they shouldn't have waited twenty years to build.