[Centurion2000]

I hate to say it but the judge and lawyer have a case. This law also applies in Texas, and if you don't maintain your property and someone next to yours does it for you, they can make the same kind of claim.

Your land, use it or lose it.

[Minuteman23]

How exactly did McLean "maintain" this property? From the pictures I've seen, he did nothing but walk a path through part of it (and it certainly doesn't look like a path that's been used for 20 years). That's not "matintaining."

Here in PA, you can invoke adverse possession if you have been paying the taxes on the propety during the time you were "using" it and I'm going to assume it's the same in CO. According to everything I've read, McLean hasn't paid a penny in taxes and the Kirlins have paid 20 years worth.

It's obvious these two with political connections are bending the law and figuring they can get away with stealing. It looks like people are getting wise to their plan and it may not happen. I hope not.

[joanie-f]

My reading on this case shows no evidence of McLean or Stevens 'maintaining' the property in question. And the photos I've seen reveal a single narrow path with trampled grass, certainly not a path that has been regularly used for twenty years.

My understanding (which was rekindled by R#84) of adverse possession is that it generally refers to a piece of land that has been essentially abandoned (or mistakenly assumed to belong to an adjoining landowner). The person who desires to claim it must maintain it and pay taxes on it for a prescribed period of time (which may be twenty years in Colorado?).

I don't believe that McLean or Stevens have 'maintained' the land, nor have they paid a cent in taxes, while the Kirlins, although not maintaining it (And why would they, other than perhaps mowing it, which, from the photos I've seen, it appears that they did? It's a vacant lot.), they faithfully paid the taxes on it for the twenty years that McLean and Stevens claim they were 'using' it.

The motives in this case are obvious, and the McLean/Stevens claim doesn't fall under the adverse possession umbrella for several reasons.

This appears to be a case of two arrogant, politically-connected big-wigs who think they can throw their weight around under the radar, and steal from a neighbor in the process. IMO, the fact that they may lose the natural view from the side window of their home does not take precedence over their neighbors' property rights. And, if all is as it appears, they are without integrity ... or conscience.