ROSEN: Property rights and wrongs
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published December 7, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated December 7, 2007 at 9:32 a.m.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." Perhaps that explains why O.J. Simpson got away with murder (in criminal, if not civil court). A more recent, local example is the injustice done to Don and Susie Kirlin of Boulder, whose property has been awarded by a judge to a pair of scheming, avaricious neighbors, Richard McLean and Edith Stevens (a married couple, hereafter referred to as the McLeans).
In essence, the McLeans' case is that they've been willfully trespassing and usurping the Kirlins' property for at least 18 years and would now like to steal it outright - legally. It's like your neighbor borrowing your lawnmower and failing to return it for years; then refusing when you ask for it back, claiming it's now his. But what did he, or the McLeans, do to earn their ill-begotten property?
The McLeans are exploiting an arcane real estate law known as "adverse possession," under which a person may acquire title to land from the actual owner simply by using the land openly for a period of time under certain conditions. This doctrine, with longstanding roots in common law, may be justified in some circumstances. For example, in ambiguous cases where homesteaders have used land in good faith for decades only to later discover that the boundaries were misunderstood, fences had been improperly placed and the land, in fact, was not theirs. But this is clearly not the case, here.
This wasn't a "good faith" misunderstanding. The Kirlins' lot is small, only 4,750 square feet, less than one-ninth of an acre, about 80 feet by 55 feet. From the outset, the McLeans knew exactly where the property line was, shamelessly acknowledging that at the trial.
Last year, when the McLeans learned the Kirlins were finally about to build their home on the lot - partially obstructing the McLeans' mountain view - they went to court to block it. That was the catalyst for their contrived adverse possession claim. It's a petty and transparent ruse intended simply to buffer their property at a neighbor's expense. Thanks to a ruling from a friendly judge, the McLeans have confiscated one-third of the Kirlins' lot without compensation.
The McLeans are both lawyers (Richard is a retired judge) and had knowledge of the adverse possession law. The Kirlins didn't. If they had, there were several things they could have done to protect themselves. The McLeans took unfair advantage motivated by nothing more than selfishness.
In the immortal words of Charles Dickens' Mr. Bumble, there are times when, "the law is a ass." One hundred and 50 years ago, French economist Frederic Bastiat described "legal plunder," in his essay, The Law: "See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen cannot do without committing a crime."
As a matter of public policy, the legislature should update adverse possession law to protect property owners in the future from unethical manipulators like the McLeans. Such action may come too late for the Kirlins who are running up legal expenses of a quarter of a million dollars as they pursue this case on appeal. Let's hope a higher court rules for the Kirlins on the facts or the spirit of the law.
So far, the McLeans have succeeded in subverting the letter of the law to their benefit. It's a sad commentary that Richard McLean was once a judge. If these people had any shame, they'd act honorably and relinquish their unjust claim to the Kirlins' property.
P.S. - Don Kirlin is a veteran U.S. Navy fighter pilot. The McLeans were, respectively, chairman and chairwoman of the Boulder County Democratic Party.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 7, 2007
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
It is a terrible miscarriage of justice but Rosen is such a stooge he has to make it a left/right issue.
December 7, 2007
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Great article Mike and thanks for the clarity on this very strange law. BTW Spencer, I fail to see how Mike Rosen makes this "a left/right issue". I see he points out that Don Kirlin is a US Naval aviator and that the McLeans are lawyers and high ranking offcials in the Democratic Party in Boulder County. What political party is Mr. Kirlin? Is he on the right or left? I missed that part of the essay. I think you are creating boogeymen where they do not exist. Mike made an observation and you pasted your own partisan bull#@&* on top of it.
December 7, 2007
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
Mike, thanks for getting this story out to your audience. The scary thing is how people like this are/were judges. They are clearly unethical and incapable of using sound judgement. They abused the law to satisfy their own self interest. Perfect leaders for the Boulder County Democratic Party - they should be proud.
December 7, 2007
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Oh c'mon Micheal! Rosen is a crafty and careful wordsmith, and anyone who listens to his radio show knows he often pushes buttons using red flag 'code words' that can be construed in multiple ways, and then denies that he did anything so blatantly obvious. It's part of his stock in trade and why he is successful.
December 7, 2007
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
All I can say is I hope the Kirlins appeal the decision and the Appealate Court decides to put limits on the Right of Adverse Possession.
But I'm not surprised that leftist leaders are involved in land grabs, it's been that way for years all over the west. Anybody remember Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monumnet?
December 7, 2007
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Faux_Noise writes:
P.S. - Don Kirlin is a veteran U.S. Navy fighter pilot. The McLeans were, respectively, chairman and chairwoman of the Boulder County Democratic Party.
And this has what to do with anything in the article?
December 7, 2007
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
RLaitres writes:
The adverse possession case now in the newspapers does beg the question as to whether the judge in the case considered the entire body of law in rendering his/her decision. Although not an attorney, some common sense has to be used in this case. It appears that a very important question is being overlooked.
During the 18 years during which Mclean and his wife were apparently conspiring to seize their neighbor’s property, which party was paying the taxes on that property? Was it McLean and his wife, or was it the neighbor? If the latter, it brings up a very interesting point.
If the state, or any of its agencies was billing the neighbor, and it is the neighbor that paid the taxes, was not the state itself defining that property and re-affirming real ownership each time it did so? If the taxes had not been paid, against whom would the taxing authority (the state) and the courts have acted? Would it have been McLean and his wife or the neighbor?
Again, if the latter, then the state and the courts must admit that the state itself was defining the property and re-affirming the ownership of the neighbor.
The law of adverse possession notwithstanding, the state itself, through its duly constituted taxing authority(ies), having confirmed real ownership throughout that entire period, up to and including the date of the last tax bill sent or the last tax payment sent by the neighbor and accepted by the state or any of its agencies, repeatedly defined that property and re-affirmed ownership.
It was not necessary for the neighbor to reclaim his/her property or its use. The activities of the state and its agencies, through the taxation process, were doing it for him. Neither the state nor any of its agencies can deny that they did so, as then they must also admit that they had absolutely no basis upon which to tax the individual.
December 7, 2007
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
What does any of that have to do with the story Michael? Was it pertinent to point out they were members of the Democratic Party?
December 7, 2007
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrJim writes:
I think its perfectly legit to point out that they were not only members, but leaders, of the local Democratic Party. Just adds to the typical democrat mindset of getting something for nothing, at someone elses expense, and "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" democrat mentality.
December 7, 2007
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
Spencer
If Mr. Campos had written this story and and did what Rosen said whould you have brought it up? Or if they were co-chairs to the Republican Party whould you say anything then?
December 7, 2007
6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
I was interested in what Rosen had to say in the article. I was agreeing with him all the way until he had to bash the left as he always does. Just take what this leftist hater says with a grain of salt.
I’ll bet Rosen would not have wasted his “precious” time giving his opinion on this story if he could not find some dirt to throw at the left.
Heck, lets take this a step further, I’ll bet if the McLeans were Republicans and the Kirlins’ were Democrat he would thake the side of the McLeans. He probably would have said the McLeans were smart capitalists taking advantage of what this country has to offer and the Kirlins’ were stupid for letting this happen.
I guess he thinks the RMN has the same narrow-minded caliber of Bush lovers that listen to him on KOA. Besides let him point out the crooks on the left side.
Just let it be known for every crook on the left side there are at least 10 crooks on the right!
December 7, 2007
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Don Kirlin owns the land, it belongs to him, end of story.
Only narrow-minded liberals believe that they can confiscate other people’s property at will using the law. But than again, they been doing it for years, so what else is new. The McLeans are just typical democrat lawyers.
December 7, 2007
10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
kevin3
I did not know calling someone a Democrat was throwing dirt. Whats up with the name calling? What crooks on the right you do not give any examples where is your proof?
December 7, 2007
11:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
Brad
Calling someone a Democrat is not throwing dirt, (I never said that anyway) it is the fact that Mike ties the arrogance and shear disregard to neighbor goodwill and in my opinion stealing actions of the McLean’s to the Democratic Party. That is throwing dirt.
I do believe however, the McLean’s should be forced to resign as chairs of the Boulder County Dem Party for being immoral.
As far as calling people and generalizing people who listen to his show as narrow-minded Bush lovers--that was wrong on my part. I apologize. I got caught up in the heat of the moment.
As far as crooks on the right, here we go: The ex-execs of Enron, all of the execs getting rich at Halliburton, all of execs of various U.S. defense companies getting rich because of the Iraqi war, the U.S. oil companies execs exploiting the war and Americans to fill their pockets, Reagan’s trickle down economy theory, the Silverado bank scandal, Watergate, all the execs of companies who used insider trading to get rich...etc.
December 8, 2007
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
RLaitres -
"During the 18 years during which Mclean and his wife were apparently conspiring to seize their neighbor’s property, which party was paying the taxes on that property? Was it McLean and his wife, or was it the neighbor? If the latter, it brings up a very interesting point.
If the state, or any of its agencies was billing the neighbor, and it is the neighbor that paid the taxes, was not the state itself defining that property and re-affirming real ownership each time it did so? If the taxes had not been paid, against whom would the taxing authority (the state) and the courts have acted?"
Great point and one I think points to the heart of the matter. The Kirlin's were paying the property taxes, so you would think the county (who collect the property taxes and handle property deeds and such) had been recognizing the Kirlin's ownership all along. The problem is, as I understand it, under Colorado law the standards for adverse possession are pretty lax and don't consider who pays the taxes. California, however, has stricter standards for adverse possession and does consider who paid the property taxes and guess what - adverse possession claims in California almost always fail while they are fairly common in Colorado.
December 8, 2007
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
RLaitres
What a good point you raise about the property taxes. It seems if the Karlins are paying up to a 1/4 million in legal costs to fight this, their lawyer would have brought that up in court.
Then again their lawyer might have over-looked this possible but brilliant loop-hole!
It is loop-holes like this that get people out of sticky legal situations!
December 8, 2007
7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
Dear Gene - That is what I meant... the Kirlins (not Karlins my bad) were either paying taxes or they were delinquint on paying taxes. Hopefully the courts would consider that subject when the Kirlins appeal in court. I also meant to give kudos to CL for bringing the point up.
December 8, 2007
7:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I have to admit that I hope for a little more from representatives of the far right like Rosen and his followers. A property dispute in Boulder? Seriously? Aren't there more relevant topics that Rosen and The Footsoldiers could comment on from the pulpit the RMN has given him?
December 9, 2007
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Brad, I don't know if I would have brought it up but I am sure someone would have and rightly so.
December 9, 2007
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
As far as the left/right issue is concerned, I believe Rosen may be suggesting that the left is often characterized as being the champion of social justice, so why are their leaders doing something so seemingly unjust?
With regard to the paying of property taxes being a defining issue of ownership, I agree. I continue to put my time in working for a very large railroad concern in their property tax department and I see this adverse possession stuff all the time. We usually beat the encroachers on the "who paid the property tax?" issue. Right off the top I can't remember one in Colorado, but we do defend title to our property both jealously and zealously and rarely lose.
As to the origins of adverse possession, it goes back well before the formation of the United States. A fellow named John Locke was very influential in terms of property rights and, as I recall, would have justified our taking of land in the United States from native Americans under pretty much the same concept. Essentially, they weren't using it and we are. One could argue the fine points, but that was then and this is now and we ain't going back.
December 9, 2007
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
I am a registered Democrat and I am appalled. A party that claims to be for the underdog, the little guy, civil rights, the environment and "social justice" shouldn't have these two shysters chairing it. Their conduct and lack of ethics beg the question, how many other people did they railroad over the years--and in the name of the Democrat Party?
I would also say that those who paid the taxes (the Kirlins) are the rightful owners and the County Assessor should get involved. They will get their land back. If there was any real justice, then those who colluded and conspired to 'legally' steal the land should pay like any other criminal -- restitution to their victim and also prison time for the crime.
If the Democrat Party is really sincere in overhauling their image as "the honest party", then they have a golden opportunity to do so here. They need to be the ones leaning on the U.S. Attorney, the Bar Association and the party heads to rid us of these ingrates.
December 9, 2007
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
If you a registered Democrat, express your displeasure with the DNC. I'm not giving them a penny until McLean and Stevens are booted out and prosecuted. Let's see if they are true to their word.
http://www.dnc.org/a/national/honest_...
Honesty starts at home!
December 9, 2007
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Proud_American_Citizen writes:
The Boulder County Democratic Party is as close-minded as they come. Go to a BCDP meeting and voice an opinion against a "pathway to citizenship" for lawbreakers or offer a concern about how ordinary people will be able to afford to live there after the Boulder County government completes its land grab and see what happens. That is why vile creatures like McLean and Stevens can get to be so prominent.
December 9, 2007
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
PAC...you do know that the vast majority of americans support the type of proposal you oppose, no?
This is a great example of why the Republican party is having such trouble. They've consistently refused to enact the will of the vast majority of Americans....from Iraq to immigration to stem cell.
You don't need to look any further for a reason why you're party is losing members by the week.
December 10, 2007
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
LS writes:
Jay, would you care to elaborate on what sort of proposal the majority of us are supporting in your comment to PAC? Because all I see in your previous comments is your agenda -- that leaves you with no credibility and shows your limited vision.
And as far as your post on 12.8 at 7:56 guess it's a good thing it wasn't your property that was stolen right out from under you by a couple of sniveling, dishonest lawyers and a crooked judge. Even if Rosen used his right leaning bent for this article, I for one (and obviously am not alone here) am following this case very closely and appreciate the additional information he has offered.
December 10, 2007
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
My pleasure LS. I was just correcting the common far right wing myth that the country doesn't support a gwp with a path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants already in country and who qualify
December 10, 2007
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
As far as this horse that the right has ridden into the ground...if only we could get you far right wingers to discuss the issues that are so important to the country with such ferver....instead it's gods, gays and guns...with a little swiftboating thrown in the mix to make up for the right's lack of ability to stand by their track record come election time.
December 10, 2007
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Jay, you're referring to the amnesty plan? I don't think the surveys that were published showed any leanings of the public toward a favorable position on that. And I sure didn't see any comments by PAC in this thread on that either. But, thanks for the answer anyway.
Please though, before you judge everyone that calls you out, for example "... if only we could get you far right wingers..." don't think for a minute you know what my political and/or religious leanings might be, you'd be very mistaken to be sure. Or maybe you didn't mean that comment to refer directly to me, in the way I interpreted your writing to say.
We definitely need better, stronger leadership, I don't see it coming from either prominent party though. And too, it's because there are people all around who are too willing to spin politics into every single thing that happens (as what Mike did with his article) that we have the divisive problems that we do.
December 10, 2007
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Jay, to avoid confusion... I like this username much better than my boring LS initials, don't you think? Guaranteed to stir up some eyebrows maybe.
;-)
December 10, 2007
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
Isn’t it interesting how a discussion on private property rights so quickly degraded into one of right vs. left, republican vs. democrat. I’ll be the first to declare that, 1) I am a staunch conservative and, 2) I am not a fan of Mike Rosen. Regardless, Rosen’s article on the subject was right on – except for the P.S. where he unnecessarily tried to make a political statement. And unfortunately, many of you took the bait and ran with it. Look folks, property ownership is as fundamental to our freedom as freedom itself and many may be oblivious to how quickly this privilege/right is being eroded. The issue of “adverse possession” is currently a hot topic because it has hit so close to home. But, another similar vile practice called eminent domain is also being used/abused with abandon at both the national and state levels. Currently, plans are being made to build a private toll road on the eastern plains of Colorado. This proposed private road stretches from north of Ft. Collins all the way south of Pueblo. If allowed, this private toll road corporation, under the leadership of entrepreneur Ray Wells, would confiscate/steal the homes and property from thousands of tax-paying homeowners – many of whom have lived in this area for generations. An interesting side to my argument is that about a year and a half ago, Senator Bill Weins (Republican) introduced a bill (SB230) that would have severely limited the use of eminent domain in Colorado. This bill passed unanimously in the Senate. It also passed in the House with one caveat. 13 representatives voted against this bill – 11 of whom were republicans. Worse yet, when the bill reached Republican Gov. Bill Owens' desk he quickly vetoed it! 13 of our elected “representatives” and 1 governor essentially voted against protecting citizens and their right to own property in Colorado. Again, as a conservative, I am outraged that today in America, “land of the free”, people can so easily be forced to relinquish their “American dream”. My point is that regardless of whether due to eminent domain, or adverse possession, or any other lame law you want to cite, taking people’s property away from them is wrong! It is un-American! And it should have nothing to do with political affiliation.
December 10, 2007
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
PMS..I was referring to Rosen and his ilk when I said "far right wingers"...which he and the rest of the vocal minority certainly are.
As far as the country's support for a GWP plan (look up the definition of amnesty and I think you'll begin to understand why that's a mislabel)...it has been established by many credible, national, random, non-online, scientific polls that the vast majority of Americans by nearly a 6.5-7 out of 10 margin support such a plan.
December 10, 2007
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
jay you refer to Rosen and his ilk as "far right wingers" then Air America and their ilk would be very far left wingers.
December 10, 2007
5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Make your case for that if you'd like Brad...I can provide specific polling that clearly puts Rosen and his ilk in the minority on nearly every single issue before the country today.
December 10, 2007
7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
There seems to be some misunderstanding about adverse possession here. The way Rosen tells it, it sounds like outright thievery. Perhaps the Kirlins did have some sort of evil designs on their neighbor's property. But I have to question the actions of the McCleans here. For 18 years they allowed there neighbors to openly and notoriously possess their land. Why does no one mention this? They would have to possess the land in such a manner that those who lived in the area would have thought the land belonged to the Kirlins. Why would the McLeans allow this? Not one person on this forum would allow their neighbors to seize and hold their land for 18 years. The McLeans had 18 years to tell the Kirlins to get lost. At some point, these people should have to take some responsibility for their gross inattention to who was possessing their tiny little plot of land where they lived.
I have to question this assertion that the Kirlins plotted and schemed to "steal" this piece of their neighbor's land. Is it believable that the Kirlins wanted to put an addition on their home, so they decided to move on to their neighbor's land, hope they wouldn't say anything, and wait 18 years to be able to put the addition on the house? Clearly no one in their right mind would hatch such a rediculous plot and wait a quarter of their life to see it through.
Rosen claims the Kirlins admitted to knowing where the property line was. What about the McLeans? Did they not know where the line was? Was their admission in the form of a stipulation, which would acknowledge the point for argument's sake since it has no application to the legal analysis.
The McLeans had 18 years to assert their property rights. All they had to do was say once in that period, "That's my property. You are not allowed to remain on it." The McLeans chose to allow the Kirlins to traspass for 18 years without saying "boo." Now they should take responsibility for their gross inattention to what was happening outside their window.
December 10, 2007
8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
Jay I have a couple of questions for you.
If you were a leader city,state,country would you lead by having polls daily? Or would you do what you felt was right thing to do.
And if by polls would you have it phased the way you want it to come out. If not by polls and something did not work out what would you do?
December 11, 2007
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Brad, please don't confuse my position. I am simply bringing to light the fact that Rosen and the rest of the folks on the minority far right are in fact just that...a vast minority...whose positions aren't shared by the rest of the country. I have no doubt that Rosen and his ilk believe that their positions are in the best interests of their country...well...that might be going too far...let's say that I'm quite sure that they believe their positions are in the best interests of their party.
December 11, 2007
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
Note to Gene; the McLeans had 18 years to say something. They sat silent. Where is the personal responsibility? I believe you are misunderstanding how difficult it is to gain property through adverse possession.
December 11, 2007
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
Note to fcatalina: Gene is right - you're all jacked up. The Mcleans are the corrupt neighbors who stole the property from the Kirlins' (the rightful owners). In response to your rediculous question, "Where is the personal responsibility?", the Kirlin's responsibility began when they signed the dotted line when they purchased the lot, thus becoming owners of the lot. Their responsibility continues each time they pay taxes on THEIR PROPERTY. They owe the Mcleans NOTHING! Incidently, the issue of whether or not the Kirlins' paid their taxes is strictly a matter between them and the government; it has nothing to do with whether anyone else should be able to claim rights to their lot. The property belonged to the Kirlins' and not the Mcleans'. Conequently, the entire time the Mcleans' were helping themselves to someone else's property, they were in violation of tresspassing.
December 11, 2007
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
It's just my way of poking fun at the vocal, far right wing minority, Gene.
December 11, 2007
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Belinda writes:
Has anyone thought that maybe the judge who ruled in this case for the McClean/Stevens was their best buddy? Hmmmmmm maybe some investigation in to their relationship should be done.
December 11, 2007
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
jay (et al), part of the agreement to posting comments on this forum states "You agree not to post comments that are off topic,..." Have you (and others) lost sight of the primary issue?
December 11, 2007
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Belinda-
I've mentioned that on other blogs for this subject:
- Did the judge who make this decision know the McLeans, and if so, why didn't he recluse himself?
- Further, did the other judge who granted the "emergency injunction" [to stop the Kirlins from building a fence on their property] know the McLeans too? What was his basis for granting an injunction? Were all procedures followed? Are injunctions normally granted on an emergency basis for people building on their own land?
I've also commented on the tax situation:
- Did the judge who granted possession to the McLeans not recognize the Kirlins paying of taxes as being a sign of ownership? What WOULD count as possession, beyond purchasing the land?
- Why weren't the Kirlins reimbursed their taxes for the past 18 years if the land "really" belonged to the McLeans?
- Since McLean admitted openly in court to trespassing and unlawful modification of someone's else's property, why didn't the judge prosecute since that is still a crime?
- What was the judge's basis for making the KIRLINS pay for the McLean's court fees in taking their own land in the original filing? (Talk about rubbing salt in the wound!]
I'd LOVE to see an answer to the above... It does seem awfully suspicious how the McLeans managed to work the system so EASILY and QUICKLY.
December 11, 2007
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
For future stories I would like to see Rosen provide the following information along with the party affiliations. Overweight? Religious affiliation, race, kind of car they drive, lefthanded?, hairline (is he balding?) All of this information is vital to any story.
December 11, 2007
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Western_Sky writes:
LOL! That's funny Spencer.
Back to topic, a friend of mine who lives in the area told me that the McLeans actually weren't trespassing on that chunk of land for such a long period of time. Their activities were much more recent, particularly after the fact, when it became common knowledge the Kirlins were going to finally build on their lot. What skanks those people are for stooping to such low-life, selfish tactics... so their "view" isn't affected. I hope the appeal is considered and the Kirlins get back what is rightfully theirs in the first place.
This type of land thievery must be pretty common. In fact, a client of mine (also a lawyer) told us about adverse possession years ago, (also something called historical right of access) because we have a large tract of rural land around us and he suggested we "alter our fencelines" to take advantage of it.
December 11, 2007
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
uglyduck, you don't believe in topic evolution? How about just evolution?
December 11, 2007
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
Ugly Duck - Would you let your neighbor live on your property for 18 years? No one stole anything. The law says if you let someone have your land for 18 years it becomes theirs. Period. End of story. It's not theft. And preventing it from happening is easier than falling down. The moral of the story is if you see a tent in your yard, go tell the people in it to leave.
December 11, 2007
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Western_Sky writes:
fcatalina - they were not living on it for 18 years, not even close. From accounts of a friend who lives a few doors down, only very recently have they been using it to access the back of their own property and to store a bit of firewood on. And that neighbor along with other neighbors are supporting the Kirlins and have given sworn statements to that affect. The 18-years claim story is a lie (big surprise). So the McLeans certainly are stealing something that doesn't belong to them. To avoid their nice view being partially obstructed and all. They took exactly enough of the land to negate the true owner from being able to get a building permit to build the home they've planned on for years. Lowest of the low, those McLeans are.
Now if you'll allow me to prevaricate about using a portion of your property for 18 years, I would be happy to take from you whatever portion I deem is mine, whether you've dutifully paid your property taxes or not. I don't have to live on it, I just have to claim I'm using it to store firewood or some other fabricated lie. And until the law changes (which was NOT written to allow for this type of greedy, me-first land grab) there will be nothing you can do about it.
All I am trying to say is these are dishonest people fcatalina. They'd do the same thing to you if they had the opportunity and you wouldn't even know it.
December 11, 2007
6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
If they lied to steal land, they are clearly terrible people. That's a big if, however. Unfortunately the only information I know about this case comes from rumor and Rosen. But if that's true, and they somehow managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes in a brazen attempt at thievery, then they are despicable. However, if the McLeans weren't paying attention for 18 years, I'm not about to lose sleep over it.
December 11, 2007
10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
The way I interpret it is that the two lawyers likely did lie to take advantage of a little-known law, something the other folks knew nothing about. Not to take their land for the sake of stealing outright it per se. I read in an article on the 9news website that they took just enough land away to prevent the people from being able to get a building permit. In their greedy minds it's okay for them to enjoy their home on their own lot, but god forbid anyone else should have the same opportunity. Can you imagine living near these people and wondering what they'll do to the next neighbor? Wooo-weeee. That sucks.
December 12, 2007
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Rosen had another "slip of the tongue" and referred to Barrack Obama as Osama bin Laden on his radio show. Anyone who really believes that this was a "slip of the tongue" is just as big a tool as Rosen.
December 12, 2007
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Western_Sky writes:
Gene, I would be interested to read that. Where did you find that info?
December 12, 2007
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
December 13, 2007
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
TarryGardner writes:
http://web.dailycamera.com/pdf/1204ki...
You can read the order right here that has a summary of the testimony, facts and law.
Gene says McLean retired from the bench in 1996; the jduge that heard the case was appointed in 2005 according to the state bios. So, its certain that they never served together and it doesn't look like they even knew each other because one is from Denver and practiced there.