Skip to comments.
Boulder Judges Making Habit of Grabbing Their Neighbors' Land?
My Fox Colorado ^
| November 21, 2007
| CHARLIE BRENNAN
Posted on 11/22/2007 12:09:13 PM PST by Sue Bob
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Something is rotten in Boulder.
1
posted on
11/22/2007 12:09:14 PM PST
by
Sue Bob
To: Sue Bob
2
posted on
11/22/2007 12:15:25 PM PST
by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: republicpictures; Reagan Man; jan in Colorado; colorado tanker; wagglebee
Can’t the judge be impeached?
3
posted on
11/22/2007 12:18:30 PM PST
by
Clintonfatigued
(You can't be serious about national security unless you're serious about border security)
To: Sue Bob
“When she heard that Yeager was using something called “adverse possession” to claim ownership of t he wall and thereby move the property line dividing their properties roughly one foot in Krueger-Cunningham’s direction, she said, “I didn’t really understand what it was all about.” “
The lawyers and judges here are using little known laws to take land from honest citizens that don’t even know their land ownership is at risk.
The moral of this story is that if you have a lawyer or judge living next door, and you live in Boulder, either run the scum off, or move.
4
posted on
11/22/2007 12:18:42 PM PST
by
passionfruit
(When illegals become legal, even they won't do work American's won't do)
To: sionnsar
Yep. Happy Thanksgiving, Sionnsar!
5
posted on
11/22/2007 12:23:28 PM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
To: passionfruit
Actually adverse3 possession is a well known term among anyone in real estate. It basically means that if you can move in on someone's land and openly live there for a number of years without that person taking legal action to remove you, you can sue in court to just take the land. In this case her family "assumed" they owned the wall, trimmed the grass along the wall, and did all the things the owner should have been doing in maintenance of the wall. It ain't right, but it is the law.
6
posted on
11/22/2007 12:31:09 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Sue Bob
“Something is rotten in Boulder.”
The whole ultra liberal city is rotten!
7
posted on
11/22/2007 12:31:47 PM PST
by
dalereed
To: Blood of Tyrants
Adverse possession is pretty well known amongst non-lawyers in general. When I was studying for the bar, one of my friends was asking what I was studying, and when I explained adverse possession, he immediately understood, "Oh! Squatter's rights!"
8
posted on
11/22/2007 12:49:52 PM PST
by
jude24
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: Blood of Tyrants
So, if I trim my grass on my property beside a neighbor’s fence—or fix a few rocks on my side, I can claim that his entire fence is mine? I’d like to know more about the evidence in this case. I’m not sure how a non-owner can prove notorious (including exclusive), hostile and continuous use of a rock wall which serves as a dividing line between properties. The public policy behind adverse possession is to ensure efficient use of land. I don’t understand how an ancient wall fits in here.
Also, given modern platting, how could a judge—who surely knows about official surveys, “mistake” the wall as hers? And, once finding out she’s wrong, what is the moral caliber of a Judge who grabs land under the law from her neighbor. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe utilizes the courts to grab land from white farmers. Just because it may be legal, doesn’t make it moral.
Regardless, it is unseemly in the least for a sitting judge to get involved in such a land grab when there surely existed objective evidence of property lines. Subjecting her neighbor to a process dominated by the judge’s own colleagues gives all sorts of appearances of impropriety.
9
posted on
11/22/2007 12:52:31 PM PST
by
Sue Bob
To: Sue Bob
what did he do to actually adversely posess the wall?
10
posted on
11/22/2007 12:54:17 PM PST
by
jdub
To: jdub
That’s what I can’t figure out from the story. How do you adversely possess a dividing wall between property?
11
posted on
11/22/2007 12:55:24 PM PST
by
Sue Bob
To: Sue Bob
what they should have done was to claim that they gave the judge permission to use the wall. However this case looks to me like one judge ruling for another judge rather than being decided on the merits. the way the facts look to me there is no possible way that the party that lost could have actually discovered the adverse possession.
12
posted on
11/22/2007 12:59:00 PM PST
by
jdub
To: stephenjohnbanker
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you too!
13
posted on
11/22/2007 1:04:04 PM PST
by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: jdub
And they’ll keep it up until the costs outweigh the benefits.
14
posted on
11/22/2007 1:05:40 PM PST
by
Wolfie
To: Sue Bob
Adverse possession has been on the books forever. It's one of the first things law students learn in law school, according to my husband. It only applies to property, however, and the use of that property must have been for more than 21 years. So, for 50 years, the Yeager family took care of a wall on the neighbors' property but the neighbors said nothing. If before 21 years had passed the neighbors had written a letter to the Yeagers stating that they were allowing the Yeagers to use and take care of the wall that was on their property, then all this could have been avoided.
To: Sue Bob
I would be tempted to retaliate. Start trespassing, littering, spraying graffiti on the wall, walking the dog on the land, etc. Assert one’s own “adverse possession.” Of course, it would doubtless turn out that we peons can’t get away with what a judge can.
To: jdub
And the judges deny justice to their victims...
17
posted on
11/22/2007 1:18:45 PM PST
by
padre35
(Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
To: Blood of Tyrants
I think if you want to be protected against this racket, you should at least post "no trespassing" signs on the edge of your property.
It's not just outright loss of ownership, either. If you allow someone to walk or drive across your land, after umpteen years they acquire a legal right of way there.
To: Sue Bob
I won’t pretend to know the legalities or the details of this case
but I hope judges across America start to feel the heat of the ridiculous mess they have made of our Constitution
19
posted on
11/22/2007 1:22:49 PM PST
by
eeevil conservative
(When will the leftist elites finally award Bill Clinton with the Nobel "Piece" Prize?)
To: padre35
Just guessing, but I wonder if this doctrine didn’t arise in common law to keep peasants (e.g.) from being evicted from hovels they had inhabited for ages on a corner of some lord’s estate. If so, its intent is being flouted, because now it is our elites who are using this trick to seize “peasants’” land.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson