Replies

"Particularly when the intent of such laws was never meant to rise to this level. It is an abuse of the law, and theft under the color of that law, and should not have been entertained. "

The intent of the adverse ppossession law is to place the land ownership into the hands of the one using it for more than ~20yrs. It's called adverse possession, because the taker is doing it openly, and the former owner showed no concern about the taking. I've carried rolls of red brand, fence posts, chainsaws and equip on my back and done fencing in the bush to prevent this sort of thing. I also check ever surveyor's maps to verify in any real estate deal.

As I study this more and more, it is clear that the land, in terms of the paths, has not been in use in the way that the former judge stated for over 20 years. It is also clear, that the former judge is using the law to keep the Kirlins from exercising their own rights as the property owners for his own self interest...and that his friend, who should have, IMHO, recused himself, ruled in his favor.

The more I look at this...the more it stinks like the wet cow pie that it is. It is immoral, it should not have been considered, and it is a wresting of the law in question.

All of us should speak out and do what we can, IMHO, to get it overturned.

Aerial pictures apparently do not confirm a long term path...maybe two years and not twenty years. It will be up to the ex-mayor, ex-judge...to prove his case on the core issue. Perhaps he can provide some real evidence ?

Second, the ethical complain should not have been heard by a friend. Rather the friend, the judge, should have recused himself personally. The matter should have been sent to another court where this perp had not worked previously.

The appearance of corruption alone should have demanded this action. The friend knows this just like the any other judge.

...owner showed no concern about the taking

Your take on this case is the correct one. As soon as they saw a path or landscaping or any evidence of usage, they should have first called the survey crew to put up the little orange flags, and then the fence contractors to surround the place. Period. End of story. Sad but true, but it is their fault for being neighborly.

There is a fairly good chance that with enough press and publicity they can get their land back. Then of course they will need to promptly sell it, because it is unlikely they would want to live next door to these greedy bastards.

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.)