Couple seek land-grab deal
By Vanessa Miller, Daily Camera
Published December 18, 2007 at 6:12 a.m.
Updated December 18, 2007 at 2:25 p.m.
BOULDER — A Boulder couple awarded a third of their neighbors' property in October are now in "negotiations" with them to reach a possible compromise.
Both sides in an adverse-possession case involving land on Hardscrabble Drive told the Camera on Monday that they are in negotiations. Neither couple would elaborate on what the compromise might look like.
Don and Susie Kirlin lost part of one of their two vacant lots in a lawsuit filed by former Boulder Judge Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens.
"We'll see if we can come together on something that works for both of us," Susie Kirlin said. "We'll listen to any offer they make."
Because McLean and Stevens have a district judge's decision on their side, Susie Kirlin suggests that the negotiations are their opportunity to smooth over public outrage surrounding the case.
"My feeling is that they've had such a public backlash that I don't think they ever expected — I think they would like to retrieve their images as much as possible," she said. "Hopefully, this would help them out in the public if we can resolve this. I'm all for it."
McLean and Stevens wouldn't talk Monday about the discussions with their neighbors or the motivation behind them.
During a radio interview Monday morning on Boulder radio station KGNU, McLean, Stevens and their attorney, Kim Hult, discussed the judge's ruling that the couple had been using the land for almost 25 years without objection from the owners. Under Colorado's adverse-possession law, 18 years of land use is long enough to claim ownership.
"We tried to resolve this case before we filed suit, and we made numerous efforts to settle the case before trial," Stevens said on the air. "We even made an offer to Mr. and Mrs. Kirlin just a day or so before the trial. The Kirlins decided not to accept the offer, and that meant we went to trial."
The Kirlins said that none of the offers made by McLean and Stevens was reasonable, and that they had also offered up a possible compromise before the case went to court.
"We thought we made very generous offers, and everything we offered they declined," Susie Kirlin said in the radio interview.
If an agreement is not reached, the Kirlins say they will file an appeal by the deadline of Jan. 11.
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 18, 2007
6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
LazyR writes:
Too late, land grabbers. Santa will be leaving coal in your stockings.
December 18, 2007
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
Adverse-possession was meant to make right inadvertent mistakes in determining property boundary lines....not to allow lawyers to knowingly steal the land of others for personal gain.
For any of the Kirlin's property to end up in the possession of McLean and Stevens is flat out WRONG, regardless of the attempts to "resolve" the case. Greed is greed.
December 18, 2007
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
There's an old adage among attorney's: If you don't know your rights, you don't have any - and of course, the attorney's know what all their rights are. Some of them prey on those who don't - it's that simple, and we see it in clear view here.
Hey! What's black and brown, and looks great on a lawyer?
A Doberman. In this case, maybe a pack of them.
December 18, 2007
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
cpeterson writes:
The three most dispicable people in Boulder:
- Whoever killed JonBenet Ramsey
- Richard McLean
- Edith Stevens
The assumption that these are in fact three distinct individuals is made strictly for academic reasons.
December 18, 2007
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
cpeterson writes:
Here is the only compromise I would accept if I were the Kirlins:
1) McLean and Stevens (why isn't it Mrs. McLean?) leave Boulder permanently
2) This means today
3) McLean and Stevens (why isn't it Mrs. McLean?) pay the Kirlins court costs plus $50,000 for their trouble
4) In cash today.
December 18, 2007
7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
cpeterson writes:
If anyone knows any business McLean or Stevens (why isn't it Mrs. McLean?) does business with, please post it here so we can know who to boycott.
They should be completely ostracized from Colorado.
If a dry cleaner cleans their shirts, we should boycott that dry cleaner.
If a restaurant serves them, we should boycott that restaurant.
Anyone transacting business with them should be punished until no one will do business with them.
They are no longer welcome in this state. This is a matter of innocent (Kirlins) versus evil (McLean and Stevens - why isn't it Mrs. McLean?)
December 18, 2007
7:29 a.m.
Spencer writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 18, 2007
7:45 a.m.
El_Mariachi writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 18, 2007
7:54 a.m.
Cliff writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 18, 2007
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
cpeterson writes:
Hey mr. and Mrs. McLean...here is a website that may be helpful
www.realtor.com
Try typing in Bismarck, N.D.
I don't think you will be welcome anywhere closer
December 18, 2007
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Prism writes:
So a neighbor let’s you occupy their property for part of your life
mean’s you're entitled? You get (your best friend?) a Judge to by
into an old law something you found back when a person could
care a gun daily and you think that’s your right? Isn’t that what
the Taliban is doing in Iraq? Stealing the rights and land of their
Neighbor’s! More importantly maybe it’s time to vote this Judge
out of office. I hope they do appeal and true justice prevails
and that our system is not completely broken.
December 18, 2007
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
crypto writes:
The next step is to remove the law that made this land-grab possible.
December 18, 2007
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ken writes:
Way to go McLean and Stevens!! You've managed to piss off everyone in Colorado. I hope your greed was worth it. Did you ever think of asking the Kirlins politely if you could walk on their property to get to your backyard? Or was acquiring their property your intention all along? Although I don't agree with sinking to your level by boycotting the establishments that you do business with, I do feel as though you should be ostracized from society. You had no right to take advantage of an outdated law that is clearly immoral in today's world. May God have mercy on your souls...but I highly doubt it.
December 18, 2007
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
This is just sick.. it is like negotiating with a mugger so they only take half your money, and only rape your wife but not your kid. These sick creeps may have "won" in the court of law, but they have SO LOST in the court of public opinion. They do NOT deserve ANY consideration.. I think the land owners should plant REALLY tall trees on their land so there IS NO VIEW from these sick sad sorry people.
December 18, 2007
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
What I thought was so dumb in the interview they gave on channel 4 was when Mrs Stevens gave the statement "We just want access to our own back yard" don't most of us get to our own backyards thur our own property?? Hey maybe even our own back doors?? Maybe they don't teach that in Law school??
December 18, 2007
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
OH, and I DID watch these creeps on TV.. was like watching old movies of Hitler while he explained why he was destroying Europe.
December 18, 2007
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Property ownership is a big responsibility, one of the chores is walking your property line to find such encroachments and deal with them.
At the same time a restraining order keeping the owner from building a fence, issued within hours, smacks of judicial crony ism. Now the property owner is negotiating to get their rights back?
At best, this situation demonstrates the need to patrol your property regularly to keep this from happening to you.
December 18, 2007
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
Why should the Kirlins have to negotiate a deal for something that is rightfully theirs to begin with?
Just give them their land back along with the compensation they have lost trying to fight this McLean! Maybe you can recover some dignity in doing this McLean!
December 18, 2007
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
KIRLINS-NO NEED TO NEGOTIATE. It's starting to look like you are making headway. By the time Colorado gets through with these thieves, they'll be giving you their place as they flee for their lives.
THIEVES ONLY NEGOTIATE WHEN THEY ARE LOSING.
December 18, 2007
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
I agree just give it back and go crawl back in to the hole you came out of. Isn't this the time of year cold blooded creatures hibernate?
December 18, 2007
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A damn good start. These guys are thieves, no two ways about it.
December 18, 2007
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A damn good start. These guys are thieves, no two ways about it.
December 18, 2007
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
FYI--The judge who let this happen is named Klein. I hope all the voters in Boulder kick his sorry a@@ out of office at the next election. Maybe he and the land-thieves can set up shop somewhere (anywhere) out of Colorado.
December 18, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
kalilhasa writes:
I've been following this story and am absolutely appalled at the outright thievery of these two individulas. I do not understand how they were able to do this when the Kirlins were paying taxes on their land all these years and were up to date on the payments. Although I understand the intention of the law, and how and why it was initiated years ago, it is hardly fair to use this against your very own neighbors. From what I also understand is the perpetrators willfully and unlawfully used the Kirlin's property for a trail and storage of wood, seemingly without asking. I sincerely hope there is a new, fair judge (if there be such a thing) available to see the truth in this case. I also hope the perpetrators are forced to pay the Kirlins every cent they have had to spend on this despicable situation. They should be shunned right out of Boulder.
December 18, 2007
9:30 a.m.
kz writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 18, 2007
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ken writes:
I guess that's what the Kirlins get for being nice. They were kind enough to allow their neighbors to use THEIR land for access for the last 25 years, and now our wonderful government is going to stand by and allow these theives to take the property from them. I'm sorry...did I miss something? Did the Kirlins not PAY for the property? Did they not PAY taxes on the property? It is theirs!!
December 18, 2007
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
sorry it was a strange urge came over me feel free to request my last post be removed if your so inclined. :)
December 18, 2007
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ken writes:
Don't worry Kirlins...McLean and Stevens won't be your neighbors for much longer. They will be chased out of Colorado. Everywhere they go they'll be harrassed and reprimanded for their selfishness.
December 18, 2007
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
seemail3 writes:
Leges sine moribus vanae.
December 18, 2007
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike Noe writes:
This debate is raging over on RockyTalk Live.
Click here to join the fray:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/de...
December 18, 2007
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
ZiggyJ writes:
There are those that use the law to do good, and there are those that use it to perform evil. The best thing we can do now is revise the Colorado statutes to eliminate this legal avenue from the evildoers. It would be fitting to call it the McLean/Stevens Act so that future generations of law students would remember. That is an appropriate legacy that Richard and Edith can leave for the legal profession. Contact your state representatives.
December 18, 2007
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
Maybe we can get a lawyer to right a new scumbag law. Whenever these two move anywhere they will have to notify the new neighbors of their past deeds. Similar to Megans Law. I imagine if we pay the lawyer and lobbist enough we can get it passed.
December 18, 2007
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Western_Sky writes:
Suzy, if you are reading these comments, please consider the move to "negotiate" with these people carefully. Leopards do not change their spots. They are only feeling remorse and embarrassment for this legal theft of your land being brought into the public eye. Don't let them make you feel like you and Don are being done any sort of favors because the bench has happened to side with that archaic law. It still is wrong and hopefully this will be a sterling opportunity for the legislature to address this and move to change it in upcoming session. If that happens we can all be grateful for what your family has had to go through to have this law changed.
Do NOT allow those people to steal a single inch of your land. The original offer of the 5-ft. easement seems (fairly) reasonable if you don't mind slinking, lowly trash trespassing on your property. You know full well why Edie and Don did this is the first place. All the neighbors do. Hopefully when you finish the house, these rats will move away and find another view they can live with.
Best of luck to you guys.
December 18, 2007
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Western_Sky writes:
Make that Dick (not Don), apologies Don.
December 18, 2007
10:37 a.m.
rg writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 18, 2007
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
mama_mia writes:
Don't worry about the lawyer jokes, kz. They should not be removed. McLean and Stevens need to know that it's lawyers like THEM who inspire these kinds of jokes. There are decent, ethical lawyers out there, but the actions of McLean and Stevens give them all a bad name.
It's clear that these greedy slimeballs used the Kirlins' property with every intention of seizing it this way. If not, why didn't they ask to use it? 25 years is a long time... they could have cut a path to their own yard 100 times over if they didn't have one. No, they did it on purpose. While it may have been "legal", it was far from ethical or moral, and beyond the intent of the law. It was thievery and I'm embarassed for my state that it happened here.
December 18, 2007
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
Did someone drop a loose screw??
December 18, 2007
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
Back to the subject at hand.
The more these people talk the sicker I get.
And they threw in the comment that the judge was appointed by a republican? Who cares? This about them stealing someone's land knowing full well it was not theirs.
December 18, 2007
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Typical elitist mentality, using your position, and a knowledge of procedure, law etc. to stomp on someone's rights to their own benefit. McLane should know what the RIGHT thing to do here is, in a fair and just way. Too bad he has to be pushed to make a "compromise" and negotiate with the rightful owner! Shame on HIM! The McLanes are an embarrasment to the whole county!
December 18, 2007
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
DaleHein writes:
If nothing more, this stinks of collusion and conspiracy on the part of the sitting judge and the ex-judge. Maybe they are in the same situation as the Douglas County Courts with Suspended Judge Biddle and Suspended Attorney Hurst (or Steinman, whatever name she is using). It’s a poor day of news for the justice system in Colorado…. Thank goodness they aren't my neighbors. It would be interesting to hear the rest of Western_Sky's story...seems like their is something else going on in the neighborhood and Western Sky has first-hand knowledge. KZ, loved the jokes, don't take them off.
December 18, 2007
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
saffron writes:
Mr. McLean and his wife are a true pair. While waiting to meet with the Kirlins one day, on their property, the old land grabbers called their private security force (Boulder cops) to shake me down. Here's a link to the whole story:
http://www.reidwegs.com/2007/12/scene...
December 18, 2007
12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
missed one of my Favs:
What do you call a 70 seat bus going over a 1000ft cliff with 69 lawyers on board?
.....
Wasted space.
December 18, 2007
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
That's a good thought Remember, to begin with, doesn't that mean they were not paying taxes on that land?
December 18, 2007
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
El_Mariachi writes:
Gee...I wonder what I wrote to cause the "site staff" to remove my last comment?...It couldn't be for criticism over the immoral land grabbers?...Hmmmmmmm?
December 18, 2007
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Why, I think if you wrote and cuss words or threats, they censor pretty quick.
December 18, 2007
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Saffron, are you surprised by that experience? I'd almost expect it if I went over there. The dirtbags are probably living pretty cautiously as well they should be. There are some nuts out there and if any threats come to fruition... well you just never know...
Stevens and McLean really didn't think ahead when they pulled that crap, figuring the Kirlins would roll over and let it go. The land-grabbers were banking on the notion that nobody would be ever the wiser, and then the media got wind of it.
December 18, 2007
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
Does anyone know for sure if the judge knew these "people"? I can see where one would assume this. But has anyone seen anything to prove it? Like Big_D said, they are some very serious alligations. If they are true the judge will be disbarred.
December 18, 2007
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
El_Mariachi writes:
If the McLean/Stevens are willing to settle the land grab with the Kirlins...It's now about money and greed!!!...NOT the land issue! The Kirlins should ask to be reimbersed for all the property taxes they have paid on the property over the past 25+ years. That would make the land grabbing McLean/Stevens think twice.
December 18, 2007
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoMoCoroprateWelfare writes:
The Rocky's website editor must be smiling ear to ear watching the number of these posts climb like bids for a hot item on eBay, as well as the Daily Camera that broke the story. Besides Google wishing for a percentage of this "click" action, this story has legs because: between all the eminent domain cases for well heeled interests and stories about the little guy getting screwed, this land-grab case hits a cord with most folks (many who already have enough anxiety worrying about keeping their house in today's economy) !
Colorado's adverse-possession law, like most laws are promulgateded and interpreted by a bunch of lawyers so that a community of legal types are the chief beneficiaries of every theft, tort, and trespass (whether by design or not). Likewise, the average home owner (inside or outside of Boulder county) doesn't have the time or money to defend against greedy developers, entities with governmental immunity and eminent domain powers, or sleazy neighbors. In deed, if a homeowner called their local police or sheriff department to file a complaint everytime someone crossed their yard, do you think the cops would respond to that? At best the cops would tell you to call an attorney or your local zoning violations department (if the trespass was done with a bulldozer). If the citizenry actually took to shooting trespassers (which is required to avoid being subject to adverse-possession laws), then the cops might start responding to property owners' complaints ... now tell me how that supports justice, law, or order?
I'll find it very interesting to see if the next General Assembly actually passes an adverse-possession reform act, for the Governor to sign.
December 18, 2007
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Carwy writes:
I do not know why the Kirlin's just don't take former Boulder Judge Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens to court and get the money owed them for paying taxes on the land that the other people say is theirs. I mean if you clam it you should pay for it. oh and interest on the taxes as well.
December 18, 2007
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverLawDawg writes:
While criminal defense is my area of practice, not property law, I'm familiar with it as all lawyers must know the basics to pass the bar exam. From what I've read and seen this isn't adverse possession at all; adverse possession requires open or notorious and exclusive possession to be effective, such as erecting a fence or a building or something that puts everyone on notice that the possessor is claiming the property as their own. The idea being the owner of the property should know someone else is claiming it as their own because it would be obvious to anyone looking at the property. It looked to me like there was nothing more than a slightly worn out patch of weeds on the property, and no indication the McLean's were exclusively using it. Further, openly using a path across another's property regularly for 18+ years to reach an adjoining property is a “prescriptive easement”, which only gives the trespasser the right to continue using the path, not a ownership right in the property.
The idea behind adverse possession is to make sure property is used, not just owned, and gives property owners an incentive to actually go out every now and then and check up on their property. It's a good idea in theory as no one wants a completely untended plot of land next to their home. If they find evidence someone is using their land, they can put up a fence, post a no trespassing sign, or have the trespassers legally removed. The 18-year rule is to tell people if you don't at least check up on your land within 18 years, someone might take it from you. That doesn't appear to be what happened here, and it would be ashame to change a law that does have a purpose because it has been misapplied.
December 18, 2007
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
Wow this page was about to explode earlier today. It had twice as many comments, plus a few jokes. Some has requested the removal of almost all the negative comments about the judge and his wife. I really only saw one comment that seemed a little strange in a charlie manson sorta way. Wow I thought the host of the site would only erase comments that were threating or with curse words. Seems this site just deletes what ever if you ask. Very sad way to offer free speech with a censor???
December 18, 2007
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
kz writes:
ok so during the 18 years you go to your propety you see a very little used path. Are you suppose to then knock on all the neighbors doors and say hey I am planning on building here some day are you walking on my property? Wow what a welcome you would get that neighborhood.
December 18, 2007
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
cpeterson writes:
If anyone knows any business establishments patronized by Mr. and Mrs. McLean, please post it here so we can notify the business to cease doinfg business with such lowlifes.
If anyone knows of any clubs they belong to, please let us know that also.
December 18, 2007
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
I think someone should print this whole string out, find Mclanes Address and send it to him?!?
He Should see what an ASS the community thinks he his!
December 18, 2007
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jvb writes:
Dear staff: Have the decency to say why you are removing comments. Thus, we will know what is ver boten i.e. forbidden.
December 18, 2007
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
dfglorso writes:
I'm surprised at the number of comments saying the adverse possession law is old and "out-dated". In Colorado it is in use everyday. If you don't trust an attorney, just ask a professional land surveyor, real estate person or title company. Land owners who don't know their property boundaries and encumberances are like individuals walking down the street with 100 dollar bills hanging out their pockets. Someone will soon take advantage of you no matter what the law is.
December 18, 2007
9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
mem7_7 writes:
I would like to echo the comments that this is not an adverse possession case. I believe either the media got it wrong or the judge did. Adverse possession, at common law, requires the exclusive use of the property. The only way to exclusively use property is to erect a barrier to other's use. Unless Colorado judges have altered this tried and true rule, the judge must have got it wrong and the appellate judge will likely reverse on those grounds.
Also keep in mind that this case likely included multiple claims, only one of which was adverse possession, but that would also include prescriptive easement. The two are synonymous except for the exclusive use element. Judges are extremely busy and are subject to bad decisions based upon legal briefs submitted by opposing attorneys who may not be in the same league. Things will still work themselves out.
Everyone needs to calm down and quit bad mouthing attorneys and our justice system based on incomplete and inaccurate information. You are only making yourself into a fool, and keeping fools as company doesn't make you right.
December 18, 2007
9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
LS writes:
dfglorso, I think in the case of a metes and bounds legal description which is how this lot probably is recorded with the county, it would be difficult to know your exact boundaries until you hired a surveyor that set pins.
LawDawg, are you referring to the prescriptive easement a historical right of access? Wouldn't the Kirlins only be compelled to grant an easement while retaining possession of the land?
Also, in regard to title, if there was still a mortgage against this property (that hasn't been mentioned anywhere) wouldn't the title company have a interest as to a claim against it?
December 18, 2007
10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
billaritz writes:
as unfortunate and sneaky as it seems its legal!at least get fair market value and to the judge he knew for years what was up but by law its unfortunate we need to get adverse possesion revised so this dont happen to others
December 19, 2007
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Sorry to go off topic for just a moment, but Gene's amusing comment reminds me of this story that circulated the Internet about a year or so ago:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/risque/v...
By the way, this complaint and resulting financial burden on the common individual, was also brought to bear by a public official. We all need to wake up and start understanding that the goverment is actually supposed to be serving us, not the other way around.
December 20, 2007
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Gene's suggestion is terrific! To offer a variant of Gene's idea, maybe the community can "memorialize" the loss of the Kirlins' property rights. Everyone drop off an artistic (perhaps olfactory?) memento.