Boulder couple who took neighbor's land 'beleaguered'

Heath Urie, Daily Camera

Published December 12, 2007 at 7:29 a.m.
Updated December 12, 2007 at 7:37 a.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

December 12, 2007

7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Terrible analogy to use. A lost puppy is a living creature that is domesticated and relies on the kindness of humans to survive. Land is land. It does not need love, food, water, shelter, medical attention, etc. These people may have a legal claim here but their lawyer is reaching - REALLY reaching with this puppy thing. If I owned a piece of land and had not seen it or been to it in years - I still OWN IT if I have a deed that says I do. I have not needed a deed for any dog I have ever owned.
December 12, 2007

7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

RememberThis, you forget that someone has to have a conscience to feel ashamed. These people don't have a conscience between the two of them.

Hey folks, wanna feel better about yourselves? Then give the land back to the rightful owners! Losers!
December 12, 2007

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

biker writes:

This is a classic case of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Let's see. I found a combination check/wallet at the bank left by the deposit slips with a couple thousand dollars in itlast year. I did the simple thing and turned it into the bank. But technically was it still the property of the owner. I mean they didn't actually have possession of it. McClean and Stevens would have probably took it home and checked the laws to see if they could have kept it.
December 12, 2007

8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Adverse possession typically applies to unwitting, unknowing or in advertent use of neighboring land -- for instance, a fence put up years ago in the wrong location due to a mistake. This however was a hostile takeover by people who knew they were trespassing, not an innocent miscalculation of where the lines were. They should acknowledge they got away with trespassing and walk away from this unjust claim.
December 12, 2007

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mtnlover writes:

Michael, you're right on about the phony puppy analogy. We should all remember that legal reps, e.g. Kim Hult, for jerks like these are just paid liars who think up stories to try to cover for the sorry excuse they have for clients. It's significant that none of their friends who supposedly support them have spoken out publicly. They're probably as ashamed as these losers should be.
December 12, 2007

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

McLean and Stevens are thieves. They are attempting to take something that DOES NOT belong to them. What goes around comes around thieves.
December 12, 2007

8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

CDee writes:

"Edith Stevens says she and her husband are feeling "pretty beleaguered" by the fierce public opposition to their legal campaign to seize part of their neighbors' south Boulder property."

What are these people on?!?!?!?!?
They couldn't have really expected people to be OK with this??
December 12, 2007

8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

LazyR writes:

You'd think a former judge would realize the courts have better things to do than adjudicate him stealing his neighbor's property. They trespassed and got away with it. They didn't pay the taxes. They do not own this land. It belongs to the neighbor and they need to vacate this absurd claim.
December 12, 2007

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

stuckiniowa writes:

So -- if they did maintain the unused property for the last 25 years - then they are at a minimum - entitled to compensation for their efforts. Your right to own property and not maintain it - should not and can not encroach on my right to live next to property that is properly maintained. If you are not going to maintain it -- then I will. And I can either back charge you for the maintenance -- or I can take the property that you obviously dont care about, for anything other than $$ value.
December 12, 2007

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

I correct myself, the thieves HAVE TAKEN something that DOES NOT belong to them. What goes around comes around low life thieves. Tell me again who the judge is in this case? Probably a friend, co-hort of the thieves?
December 12, 2007

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

According to THE RMN, there are aerial photos of the property going back many years and there was no indication the land had been used or maintained by the thieves. They just happen to be well connected enough to enlist a local judge to help them steal.
December 12, 2007

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

uberaider writes:

If the original property owners wanted the land they should have cared for it for the LAST 25 YEARS. These people have been caring for the land at their own expense for 25 years now, posession is 9/10 of the law. I don't see why everyone is complaining, a court ruled in favor if the people that have been caring for the land, therefore it is their land now. Simple as that.
December 12, 2007

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

People of their ilk should feel "beleaguered" because of what they are doing. As another poster mentioned, "what goes around comes around" and I will not be surprised if something is taken from them. If I were them, I could not sleep at night for fear of what may be taken from me. I hope they sleep with one eye open. Many judges, lawyers, and politicians earn their negative reputation and these two exemplify the worst.
December 12, 2007

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steve writes:

Laws like this exist all over the country. In Maryland where I'm from, I believe that for instance if you let somebody walk across the edge of your property for 7 years without contest, they can claim that land.

So if you're nice to your neighbors and let them walk across your land, you can lose it. The law encourages you to be a jerk.

I don't know the purpose of laws like these but they don't server to benefit society. The thieves should return the land, even if they legally have it now.

It'll be interesting to see how much persuasive power the shame of a community will have on the thieves. Do you think it could actually change the ownership of this land?
December 12, 2007

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

justiceisblind writes:

Just because you have the "right" to do something does not mean it's the RIGHT thing to do.
December 12, 2007

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

ffischer_76 writes:

It's the use it or lose law of the west.

If you have a deed and don't step foot on the property for 10 years or more then how do you know what's going on there.

The fact that they used the land for 25 years demonstrates that the deeded owner has no intention of using it and therefore abrogates their rights to it.

4 things must happen
1. Open - use must be visible and WELL-known to others
2. Exclusive use - cannot be shared with owner(otherwise owner gives a license to use it and next point isn't valid)
3. hostile - the use is WITHOUT OWNERS CONSENT or KNOWLEDGE
4. Use must be continuous and can be proven(usually photo's do the trick)

This happens much more than you think, especially in rural areas.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the people who are losing the property.

If you own then take responsibility or other will and then it's simple -- you won't own it anymore and there isn't going to be any recourse. So sad, too bad!!!!
December 12, 2007

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

uberaider:
You have got to be kidding me. You either didn't read ALL the articles on this story or you are in lala land. A "court ruled in their favor", what a surprise, one judge siding with another judge. I own 160 acres in southern Colorado. What am I supposed to do to care for the land, cut and rake the weeds, trim the trees,...get real. If I come and take your possession of your car, is it mine - remember, possession is 9/10 of the law. Oh, that's right, you are a friend of theirs through thick or thin.
December 12, 2007

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

"They Maintained it" It's an empty lot!!! The Mcleans did not pay the HOA dues, they did not pay the taxes. What are you trying to say. They left their firewood wood pile on the land that was about it. Maintained it?? No they never maintained it. 9/10 of the law for posession, where do you park your car? I think I might possess it and drive it during the winter to save wear and tear on mine. Do you think the law would back me up? Maybe if I was a Judge and my wife a former mayor and an atty. What planet do you live on Uberaider?
December 12, 2007

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

There is NO proof that the thieves maintained or used the land. They're thieves, they lie and they have the help of their judge friend to do it.
December 12, 2007

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

kathyM writes:

Let's park our cars in the McLeans' driveway. That should give us enough "possession" to take their house!!!!!
December 12, 2007

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

SkiUtah writes:

It's hard to believe that a person can legally steal another person's property in Colorado.
December 12, 2007

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

reddog writes:

total crooks
December 12, 2007

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Western_Sky writes:

ffischer, if an individual purchases a piece of property with intent to build a retirement home on it the future, then the deeded owner does have intention. Not everyone can plunk down hundreds of thousands of dollars for construction of a house in an instant. Lots of people buy land with the intention of living their last days in a house they intend to build upon it.

The 4 things you refer to:
1. Use was not visible and known to others until a very short period of time after the lawyers became aware of the owners intention to build on it. So they knew exactly what they were doing, i.e. taking advantage of a law meant for other purposes.
2. There was no exclusive use (obviously)
3. Hostile, definitely true there.
4. Photos have shown no long-time use and neighbors substantiate that evidence.

I do have complete sympathy for the Kirlins and this is why:

They had intent to use their property
They paid taxes on their property
They have as much right as anyone else to enjoy their property as they see fit.

If Edith Stevens and Robert McLean had any idea that their thievery and greed would be made public they probably would've reconsidered their selfish plans to keep their nice view. It would have been easier to move away if they didn't like it. The damage is done. Because NOW, there are people ready to lynch them. Friends? Yeah sure. Other lawyers probably.

Where did you get the information at this has been going on for 25 years? Somebody in this thread just popped out that arbitrary number and now you are running with it. We are very aware of this law, in fact a client of mine who is a lawyer tried to convice us to take advantage of it. And it does happen, doesn't EVER make it right unless it truly is an honest error. But when are lawyers ever honest in this day and age?
December 12, 2007

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

cpcorp writes:

Darwin:
Yes, you are supposed to take positive action to maintain your 160 acres. You should at least travel the property line once over a period of eighteen (18) years to ensure that someone isn't driving cattle across your land, to repair a fence line or to ensure that someone else hasn't mistakenly put up a fence in a way that it encompasses your property. Read the judge's opinion. The Kirlins said that they had not walked the entire fence line over the twenty-five year period and this isn't anywhere near 160 acres. I don't doubt that this will be overturned on appeal since the facts indicate that the McCleans only earned an easement and not outright ownership, but the warning is to take care of your property and pay attention.
December 12, 2007

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

kz: to add to you point about the firewood. If Mcleans put firewood on the Kirlins property, the Kirlins should have the Mcleans arrested for stealing the firewood, as possession is 9/10 of the law.
December 12, 2007

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

I believe in Colorado the law is 17 years. But these folks in no way proved this. They just had their buddy the judge and golfing partner agree. I wish no one to have threats against them. But I do believe these folks need to feel ashamed and embarrassed. Ashamed to go shopping to go to the doctor or church. Embarrassed to be seen in public. I wish people would just point and say their they are the land thieves when they see them. Maybe more public ridicule will get them to drop this evil minded thing.
December 12, 2007

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

cpcorp, you not get it the easement equals one third of the land. Which now prohibts the Mcleans from building thier dream home. The standards require in the neighborhood more land then what they were left with. So they can not build anything on it. This now leaves the judge and his wife with an unobstucted view. Which is what they wanted. So why didn't they just offer to buy the lot???
December 12, 2007

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

I have never seen the lot, but I'll assume there are other adjacent property owners. Maybe those owners should claim use of the lot and should sue Edith Stevens and Robert McLean.
December 12, 2007

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

Folks, I doubt any of you have a clue as to the precise facts in this case. Did you attend the trial, review the trial transcript, review the documents or other evidence admitted and read the jury instructions that contain the applicable law? If not, you opinion as to the validity of the claim counts for nothing. Newspaper accounts of what happened are typically incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate. No reasonable person can judge the merits of a cause of action based on newspaper accounts.

Also, you all seem hell bent on attacking the doctrine of adverse posssession. It is a cause of action recognized in all 50 states. Whether it lies is a fact intensive inquiry. Attempts to compare one claim for adverse possession to another is fraught with danger, especially if you don't have a command of the facts in the particular case at issue.

The merits of the lawsuit aside, another question you all have attempted to address is whether it was proper (ethical, moral) for the judge and his wife to file the lawsuit in the first instance. Frequently, a person may have a claim against another and, for whatever, elect not to pursue it. But, again, I doubt any of you have complete information surrounding the decision to pursue the claim. Again, relying upon a newspaper story is not a particularly good way to evaluate the motivation behind the decision of the judge and his wife to file the lawsuit. It is quite possible that there were a number of legitimate reasons why the suit was filed. Unless you've all had a chance to interview the wife and his judge, I doubt you can accurately identify their motivation for filing the lawsuit.

Finally, the allegation that the judge presiding over the case ruled the way he did because the plaintiff is a former judge is defamatory - it effectively accuses the judge of a committing a crime. To contend, without more, that any judge would engage in such gross misconduct and jeopardize his job, his law license and his liberty is a completely reckless charge.
December 12, 2007

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

Correction to above. I don't believe there was a jury trial. The judge was the finder of facts. Regardless, the judge would have relied upon the same law the jury would had the case been tried befor a jury.
December 12, 2007

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

bookwerm writes:

The deserve to be SHUNNED by all who meet them, Despised by all who know them.

The legal basis for what they did is cloudy, and ethically there is NO question that it is WRONG.. they KNOWINGLY stole the use of the land for YEARS, and were REWARDED for it. I agree, the only appropriate use of Adverse Possession is accidental misuse, and what they did really is just the lowest.
December 12, 2007

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

A jury do you really think this type of trail went before a jury. Your the one who needs to get your facts straight before you start preaching to others. This former judge and his wife knew just what they were doing and the other couple had no clue of the law. Most everyday citzens don't take the time and don't have the time to study how to protect themselves from the wolves who are out there trying to take advantage of them. This judge and his wife and atty and the first presiding judge are all wolves. And yes I do believe and have seen in the past judges who do special favors for atty jeee before being a judge your first a practicing atty. People have a right to be upset and if this causes civil unrest in Boulder county. Bravo let the average joe stand up for the Mcleans causes yes it could happen to you. And these folks deserve our out pouring of outrage.
December 12, 2007

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steve writes:

Gdiamond, can you explain when the application of this law would make sense? And if you know all the facts perhaps you can explain why McLean and Stevens deserved to own this land and Suzie Kirlin deserved to lose it, even though she paid for it and paid the taxes?

Although many (all?) here may not know all the facts, they are probably right in smelling a rat.
December 12, 2007

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

Bookwerm, you are wrong on the law. Adverse possession does not turn on "accidental misuse." To the contrary, a plaintiff must establish that the use was open and notorious - not accidental.

It would appear then that you view of the law is "cloudy", not the legal basis for the claim.

It is also "cloudy" as to the facts you rely upon to conclude that filing the claim was ethically wrong.
December 12, 2007

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

If you want to protect your land from a claim of adverse possession, one way to do it is to put a fence around it. I have no idea what the defendants did or did not do to protect their property from such a claim. Regardless, the fact that the defedants may not have known the law regardig a claim for adverse possession is NOT a defense to it. Ignorance of the law is rarely, if ever, a defense to any legal claim.
December 12, 2007

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

and another thing by telling folks did you read the transcripts did you sit in on the trail. You are playing on their sense of igorance in this situation. Trying to shame them in to not sharing their opinion. Trying to make them feel they should not speak up because they don't know all the facts. I think you should be ashamed for playing the game of the elite. I know more therefore my opinion counts more then you. Shame on you sir. The American people see what is there the truth is evident in this situation, the facts are clear for anyone who has been following this for the past several months. You don't have to be a atty or legal clerk to know what is right and what is wrong. Yes the law says this the law says that, well we are in America right change the damm law!!!!
December 12, 2007

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

I have never said folks posting here don't have a right to rant and rave or otherwise express themselves. I am simply attacking the basis for their opinions. Attacking another person's opinion or view point is not shaming them from speaking out. Please, speak out to your heart's content!
December 12, 2007

10:14 a.m.

denverinfidel writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 12, 2007

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

The most important fact I know now is this. Judges are appointed but they must be voted on each year to hold that position. So don't just vote yes for this or that judge to hold his or her seat. Question who they are and vote accordingly, try to look up how they ruled on cases. I don't live in Boulder County this year so I won't have a say. I have not taken the time to look up the Judges name in this case. But I will and I will let everyone I know who votes in Boulder county what his name is and how he ruled. And when he is up for holding his seat.
December 12, 2007

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

Can someone look up the judges name on this for me?
December 12, 2007

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

CDee writes:

kz, slow down and breath.
Arguing with an idiot is futile.
December 12, 2007

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

Denverinfidel/KZ, I appreciate your anger at the result and I don't pretend to know as much about the facts as you, but if you are going to accuse the presiding judge and the plaintiffs of a criminal conspiracy, the least one can ask is that you come forward with credible evidence to support the accusation. Is that an unreasoanble request? If you can't or won't provide such evidence, its just not right to continue to recklessly throw around the accusation.
December 12, 2007

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

OldCountryBoy writes:

Here is what my UCC 4th addition law book says about adverse possession:

"In most states, if a person openly and continuously occupies or exerts dominion over the land of another for a period of twenty years, that person will gain title to the land. The possession must be actual and not merely constructive. Living on land, farming it, or building and maintaining fences on it have been held sufficient to constitute possession. It is necessary, however, that the possession be adverse. By this, it is meant that any act of dominion by the true owner during the twenty years will stop the period from running. His entry on the land or the assertion of ownership by him will break the period. In such event, the period will have to commence anew from that time."

It would seem reasonable that the owners cutting and spraying the weeds periodically, which they claim to have done, would be a reasonable assertion of ownership which would break the adverse possession period. I do not recall reading anything about the judge's family building any fences or structures on the property. Unless Colorado has specifically added legal provisions to allow other actions to constitute adverse possession, the act of walking across the property or storing temporary items like wood on it, if it is not posted with a no trespassing sign, would not give the right of adverse possession. If the person had no other access to a part of their property and continuously used the land for access, they could gain an easement for access by continuous use, but that is not ownership.

Also, it seems reasonable the Judge should have stepped up to pay the Home Owners Association fees and property taxes if they really intended to own the property. Failure to do so should invoke all the fines and other legal remedies associated with that failure.

Bottom line, I do not think the true legal definitions of adverse possession were met and the whole thing stinks like collusion between a judge and his friends to steal property from someone else. The community should be outraged and public opinion should continue to pour out against this action. It is totally wrong.
December 12, 2007

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

What I am saying is the whole idea of adverse possession in this is out of pure greed. I don't like the way the judge ruled. I have that right. I have the right to say so. I have the right to tell others how he ruled and suggest his removal from office. What facts do you want you were talking about a jury trail this never went before a jury. I believe and it is pure opinion on my part that the Judge and his wife thought this would go by very quietly and no one would make a stink. Well it sure smells of something and I am so proud of all the folks who are standing up. You are misinterpeting civic pride for angry. I have no angry or malice just believe these folks should be shamed into doing the right thing.
December 12, 2007

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

ec92243 writes:

These folks will definitely get away with grand theft here. No matter what is right (or wrong), the legal system will protect them. Neither they nor their attorney have a sense of justice; don't believe for a minute that they will lose one minute's sleep over this whole thing. I suspect Judge McLean was a very liberal judge in the past and probably had a hard time holding anyone responsible for his or her own actions. He probably feels that it's time that he gets to do what he wants without paying a price as well. What is wrong with these people? Even more disturbing, what is wrong with those who feel they have to support these thieves?
December 12, 2007

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

klien...klein
December 12, 2007

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

OldCountryBoy writes:

One additional comment after reviewing the recent postings to this string:

The entire civil rights movement succeeded because of concerned people speaking up against what they considered abuse of the law. We are seeing several recent events here in Colorado where people and agencies are using legal provisions to deny people the use of their land that they have paid taxes on for decades. Some of the posting are correct, we do not have 100% of the facts in this case but the bottom line of someone denying another the reasonable lawful use of their property, that has been duly paid for and maintained by payment of all the fees and taxes society has levied, does not seem reasonable.

We are currently seeing several people experiencing a similar event with the RTD taking land, not for the development of the rail system in the metro area, but for associated development. While it might be legal, that does not make it right.

The discrimination opposed by the civil rights movement was supported by law in several places. The laws were changed when society decided the laws were wrong. Just because someone can legally do something does not mean society should continue to allow the action. Laws can be changed when enough people stand up and say "this is wrong".
December 12, 2007

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

You see this hits really close to home for me. We have 800 acres of farmland in western Kansas, most of the land is farmed some of the land is designated in CRP(crop rotation program) it is also available for open hunting during pheasant season. One quarter of this land a neighbor has began to drive on. Even though past the land maker there is plenty of room on his own land to make a road. He has chosen to do so on our land. This is part of the land not farmed and in CRP. We had to remove 15 acres from CRP due to this. Which means we have lost revenue on it. We have notified him that we are aware of the hostile use of this land. And we are giving premission for them to use it temporaily but if we so choose to farm it in the future the road will be plowed up. Per our attorney this should be sufficiant to protect us. Who knows though maybe this inconsiderate, uncaring, greedy neighbor is a judge..............
December 12, 2007

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

battleaxe writes:

We own 4 acres in the mountains. If someone doesn't like the way we are caring for it, they can claim they worked on it and now it is theirs. Or maybe I don't like my neighbors yard, so I cut the grass for them. Now that is my land.
December 12, 2007

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Western_Sky writes:

gdiamond quote:

Ignorance of the law is rarely, if ever, a defense to any legal claim.

Which means folks - unless you work in the legal system, particularly as a lawyer - and you don't have an all-encompassing knowledge of the laws on the books, then you deserve to be taken advantage of. Pah, I spit on those holier-than-thou scabs that live to take advantage of other people like this.

That statement above that gdiamond wrote has no basis in this dispute however. This claim is built upon Edie and Dick perjuring themselves and they are getting away with it (at least so far). If this trial had indeed been put in front of a jury, the verdict would've favored the Kirlins. It's one couple's words against anothers' (and the neighbors supporting them) and the judge chose to ignore it anyway. So many people can smell the rat here!!!

Also, the judge that heard and ruled in the case is Boulder District Judge James Klein.
December 12, 2007

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

KZ, given your frustration over the outcome in this case, it would probably be a very good idea to consult with a Kansas real estate attorney who can provide you with advice on what steps you can take to prevent a claim for adverse posssession on your 800 acres. I can understand how difficult it could be to police 800 acres but there may be some relatively inexpensive steps you can take to protect yourself, short of having to build a concrete wall. Keep in mind, that the doctrine of adverse possession is not applied the same way in all states. The judicial decisions issued over time often generate differing standards regarding application of the basic elements of a cause of action for adverse possession. A party might get one result in Colorado and a completely different result in Kansas even if the facts are identical in both. Best then to consult with a Kansas real estate attorney.
December 12, 2007

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

Battleaxe go check on your property put up a no trespassing sign. Make sure no one has put a wood pile or has been walking on it. Maybe build a 20 foot wall and watch out. Hope to God Almighty your neighbors are not attorneys or judges. If your neighbors say you let them use it without consent or telling them not to use it, and the land sits for 17/18 years they can say you negelected it and therefore they claim it. dump huh.
December 12, 2007

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

gdiamond writes:

Correction above - KZ, I see you have consulted with an attorney. Great!
December 12, 2007

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

CWW writes:

I can't state it better than kz or Michael, but I totally agree that the judge who ruled in this case should be removed from office. Those who can vote in Boulder county, take note!
December 12, 2007

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

kz writes:

gdiamond read all my post, we have had the atty send a letter; but no one - I mean no can gurantee that is enough. I have to agree with the other poster on the RTD situation it is another case like the one back east. Where land is condendemed and then used for business development. I am not talking about vacant or abandonded land this is land where families have lived in their homes for years. In Missouri there is a college, CMSU they keep gobbling up all the surronding property even historic homes for additional parking lots. The RTD land grab wants to use the land to store equipement for construction of the light rail. They want to pay the homeowners the bare mininuim for this land. Once the construction is complete they will sell the land as prime realestate. This is not the state it will be owned and sold by the company doing the light rail construction. So as citzens we need to stand up stop this thiever.
December 12, 2007

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

nanvind writes:

I think taking someone's land is stealing. Just because it is legal does not make it right. I think Judge McLean should apologize profusely, give them back their land and let them build their retirement home or whatever else they want to do with THEIR land. If I bought land and was paying all the taxes, etc. I would want it to be there hassle-free for me to use when I was ready. Judge McLean is a thief pure and simple.
December 12, 2007

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

kathyM writes:

Battleaxe, maybe you should also build a small storage building or hiking/hunting shelter on the property, get an address for it, and put up a mailbox. There would be no mistaking "intent" then!
December 12, 2007

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

cpelkin writes:

OldCountryBoy's presentation of the statute on this subject certainly makes it seem the requirements for adverse possession were not met (owner's indicated that they had occasionally cleared weeds on the property). But my question is wasn't the payment of property taxes by the rightful owners every year for all of those years the most powerful "assertion of ownership" one could make? Why isn't the mere fact they coughed up the tax dollars annually used as proof that they had broken the period of adverse possession, and hence should retain clear title?
December 12, 2007

3:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

esarem writes:

One more thing, I understand that the Kirlins had been paying dues to a homeowners' assn. in the community based on their ownership of the property. This deal smells badly but consider who the "players" are.
December 12, 2007

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

somebunnyluvsme writes:

WELL, well well, Chuck, Eddy, and their low life lawyer speak out. What a total waste of space you people are. I usually try and find a more intelligent way to express my feelings toward other human beings, but in this case, you don't qualify for such consideration. You are all three, a large smelly SCUM BAG! Enjoy the temporary support of your friends,It will indeed diminish, as it becomes less, and less a popular choice to extend even the most trivial courtesy to you. Your children, God help them, will suffer from the mere stigma of your names. When even your banks, and we all know their criteria for extending service, refuse to suck up to you, you will know that you have hit rock bottom. And why, you know folks, redemption is just a quit claim deed, and check written to reimburse those you have CHEETED HERE, away. You know, a fart in church, is just that, and none of you, no matter how you try to veil your theft here are fooling anyone. We all smell what you have perpetrated. THEFT IS THEFT, plain and simple. You know It would be nice if you could just admit what you have done, and save all the rest of us the pain of hating you, there is far too much to hate in this world as is. Restore our faith in humanity her, instead of just exhibiting how low you can go! Lawyers, who'd have thunk it??
December 13, 2007

1:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

TarryGardner writes:

I am not saying what M/S did was right, but ya'll need to read up on the law. Paying taxes and HOA dues is NOT a defense to adverse possession in Colorado. The law in Colorado does NOT state that its intent is only for good faith mistakes.

The way that every person can defend himself is to give people using your land permission or make them stop before they have used it continuously for 18 years. It's pretty simple, and it requires a landowner to actually pay attention to what is going on.

Don Kirlin proudly told the Daily Camera the facts about him being a multi-millionaire that owns the largest private air force in the world. He buys MIGs from the former soviet union and sells them. According to Wired Magazine Don Kirlin he moved to Kyrgyzstan to buy these planes, and his business headquarters is in Illinois. It's tough to know what is going on with your property when you live in an Eastern Block country and your private air force business is out of state.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:n...
December 13, 2007

5:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

SusanDonim writes:

I think Stevens and McLean are in good company.

Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait in 1990 as it was just a wasteland not properly cared for.

Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. It was full of weeds and really unsightful.

Unfortunately, they didn't have a friend as a judge who saw no room to recuse himself.

So don't feel beleaguered Stevens and McLean. You did even better than Hitler and Hussein.

By the way, I have some old clothes in the back of my closet I haven't worn in a while. Would you mind stopping by and taking adverse possession of those? I don't feel like cleaning today.
December 13, 2007

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheRock writes:

I just hope someone's watching to make sure this Judge and his co-conspirator at the courthouse don't get involved in the banking and investment business. Can you imagine how many people they could wipe out using this adverse possession law, claiming they maintained their money and used it unabashedly for years?
December 13, 2007

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

Susan, that's hysterical! Love it!

:-)
December 14, 2007

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

UglyDuck writes:

gdiamond suggests caution to those lacking full knowledge of this case. If I were a betting man, I would say he/she sounds a lot like a leach/lawyer. What say you, gdiamond? Strictly from the standpoint of ethics and common decency, only two facts regarding this case are important:
1) After signing on the dotted line and paying their money, the Kirlins’ became the sole owners of this property.
2) A corrupt judge (redundancy in terms?) has awarded an undeserving couple ownership of 1/3 of what used to belong to the Kirlins’. Now, IF this truly was America – land of the free, then having extensive knowledge of the law wouldn’t need to be a prerequisite to maintaining ownership of one’s property (as a couple of people in this forum have suggested). Furthermore, anyone using someone else’s property (i.e., property for which they did not purchase) FOR ANY REASON without the permission of the rightful owner would, at the very least, be subject to trespassing. The issue of impropriety should target the offender – not the property owner. Why should it be incumbent upon the rightful property owner to be a babysitter of his/her property in order to maintain ownership? Why should anyone be required to police his/her property in order to prevent someone else from taking it from them? Why should the issue of ownership have anything to do with whether or not the property is being properly maintained, or whether or not the rightful owner has intentions of using the land (for building on it, or parking cars on it, etc.)? Why should ownership rights have anything to do with how much money you have, or how you make your living (wasn’t this your point, TarryGardner?)? These are all side issues. The central issue is simply this – if I pay for a piece of property, then that piece of property belongs to me. And, IT IS NOT YOURS FOR THE TAKING – regardless of your irrelevant and inconsequential excuse for wanting to take it from me! Period!
December 15, 2007

12:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

BirdonaWire writes:

"Instant Karma's gonna get you
Knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead"

My apologies to Mr. Lennon for possibly taking the lyrics out of context, but I thought them appropriate in this case.
Wake up! Instant karma's gonna get you. Give it back before it's too late.
December 15, 2007

9:47 a.m.

rg writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 18, 2007

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrw650 writes:

Feeling beleaguered? The Kirlins no doubt feel robbed and raped! Cry me a river, M/S!

Home › News › Local News

Boulder couple who took neighbor's land 'beleaguered'

Heath Urie, Daily Camera

Published December 12, 2007 at 7:29 a.m.Updated December 12, 2007 at 7:37 a.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published December 12, 2007 at 7:29 a.m.
Updated December 12, 2007 at 7:37 a.m.