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
Well said.
~bookmark~
_______________________________________
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.