Couples in Boulder land grab disagree over pretrial offers

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Originally published 11:11 a.m., December 20, 2007
Updated 04:31 p.m., December 20, 2007

Parties in a contentious suit over title to part of a valuable Boulder lot disagreed today on what offers they made to each other before the case went to trial.

A Boulder judge in October awarded about one third of a lot belonging to Don and Susie Kirlin to their neighbors, former Boulder Mayor Richard McLean and his wife, Edith Stevens.

The award was made under a legal principle called adverse possession, which allows a person who has been using land for at least 18 years to claim it from the owner.

McLean and Stevens had been crossing the Kirlin's empty lot for 25 years to get to their back yard, the judge found.

Don Kirlin said today that before the trial, he had offered to give McLean and Stevens for free an easement that would allow them to continue crossing his land to get to their back yard. The easement would cover a strip 80 feet long — the length of the lot — by 5 feet wide, Kirlin said.

Kirlin said McLean and Stevens wanted a piece that was 80 feet long by up to 14 feet wide at one spot.

Kim Hult, a lawyer for McLean and Stevens, said Kirlin's recollection of the offers on an easement is not correct, but declined to comment further.

Hult and Kirlin said that during a mediation process before the trial, they discussed the sale of part of the disputed lot to McLean and Stevens. The price would have been a prorated share of the appraised value of the entire lot.

Assuming the lot is worth $1 million, that would be in the range of $300,000.

The property enjoys spectacular views of the Boulder greenbelt and the Flatirons.

Kirlin said the families are still negotiating a settlement. Hult would not confirm negotiations.

Meanwhile, the Kirlins are also appealing the October ruling.

• December 20, 2007

  12:03 p.m.

  jacka writes:

  (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

• December 20, 2007

  12:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  Judge James C. Klein can expect to be fired by the voters the next time his name appears on a ballot here in Boulder County. I intend to start a non-profit to finance an ad campaign to that end.

• December 20, 2007

  1:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  CDee writes:

  If it's a million dollar lot and the Kirlin's will not be able to build on that part of it that sounds about right to me. They should be compensated for having to let them use part of their property when they didn't choose to.

• December 20, 2007

  2:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  horsinaround writes:

  The judge in the case absolutely should be removed. I do hope the voters in Boulder County will step up when it's time for his re-election and unanimously vote him out of office. As for McClean and Stevens, they are plain and simple crooks who had the advantage from their careers of knowing the legal system and obviously used that knowlege to steal what didn't belong to them. I would hope they would be shunned by all of Boulder, including the legal community there and in Colorado.

• December 20, 2007

  2:36 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  stuckiniowa writes:

  I didnt think that anybody in Boulder owned anything. What with the socialist state and all.

• December 20, 2007

  2:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  bookwerm writes:

  I surely will vote to remove Judge James C. "Idiot Head" Klein, and hope he is disbarred, censured and jailed sooner. The Kirlins never quoted 300K,.. but if the removal of that land prevents a buildable lot in that neighborhood from BEING buildable, and $300K is VERY fair price for a lot there, then yes, it is worth $300K to give up the right to build, if not more. Kind of like a car is not worth much without a key.. that land is not worth much when it lost that 1/3rd. Those greedy sick bastards, they are going to hell for sure. Everyone shun them,.. don't sell them food, gas, or air (I wish!).

• December 20, 2007

  3:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Diff writes:

  I will look for that Non-profit and hope to be one of the first contributers!
  How do the Mclanes/Stevens look at them self's in the mirror every morning? How can they face their Friends (if they have any) or family.
  Wonder if anyone took up the suggestion to print and mail these and the comments from the other day to the McL/S house hold? Just to show them what the community thinks about them.
  Of course does any of this mean anything to them? They must be sad, pathetic people and are so self absorbed and selfish that they have no care what anyone would think of them. They obviously have no self respect at all!
  Oh yeah they lawyers after all I guess we maybe expect too much of them.
  I wonder if the Kirlins are allowed to have any large animals on the property - if so, I'd suggest hogs.
  Mclane and Stevens - why don't you just go crawl under a rock somewhere (maybe West Texas?) and leave the state!

• December 20, 2007

  3:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  CDee writes:

  Now Diff,
  What did West Texas ever do to you to deserve these "people"?

• December 20, 2007

  4:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Diff writes:

  Just an ugly place to have to live (JK)
  West Texas is the only place you can stand in MUD up to your..
  Belt Buckle
  and get dust blown in your eye at the same time.

• December 20, 2007

  5:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  Thanks for the support for the non-profit. This just makes me sick, and rest assured, I'll be leading the public campaign to oust the worthless judge James C. Klein from his comfy spot on the bench.

  Ya hear that, judge?

• December 20, 2007

  7:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  fortyfive writes:

  all of you people better watch out, i'm pooooor, broke and in need i will do the same and go before this judge and take some of your property and sell it back to you for a profit, this seems like a legal way to rob someone with their eyes wide open and still think they are your friend.what a joke this judje is. i wonder if they both ,being in the legal profession belong to the same good ole boys club just something to think about..........

• December 20, 2007

  7:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Reality_Check writes:

  Edie Steven's statements to the the Denver Post COMPLETELY NEGATE their AP claim. And those statement are in direct opposition to what they claimed and asserted UNDER OATH in court.

  Edie Stevens confessed to the Denver Post "that she and her husband didn't want the Kirlin's land **UNTIL** the Kirlin's started building a fence blocking access to their path."

  Edie Stevens told the Denver Post "If we had wanted to take their property, we could have filed for it in 2000,"

  IT'S ALL OVER !! -- Perjury, false statements to the court, admission they did not meet the elements necessary for Adverse Possession !!!

  Very good point, as it disproves at least one, if not two, of the necessary elements needed to legally establish Adverse Possession:

  - the possession must be hostile
  - the possession must be under claim of right exclusive of all others

  “The very essence of adverse possession is that the possession must be hostile, not only against the true owner, but against the world as well.” Lovejoy v. School District No. 46

  To obtain title by adverse possession, a party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his possession was actual, adverse, hostile, under a claim of right, exclusive, and uninterrupted for the statutory period. Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989).

  The statutory period in Colorado is eighteen years. Section 38-41-101(1), C.R.S. 2004.

  Whether possession is hostile or adverse is ordinarily a question of fact. Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Ritchey, 888 P.2d 298 (Colo. App. 1994). The question is resolved "by reasonable deductions from the acts as well as declarations of the parties involved."Vade v. Sickler, 118 Colo. 236

  For use to be "hostile,"the adverse possessor must demonstrate an intention to claim exclusive ownership of the property occupied. Anderson, supra.

  Party claiming right by adverse possession did not demonstrate intention to claim exclusive ownership of the property for statutory period. Schutten v. Beck, 757 P.2d 1139 (Colo. App. 1988)

• December 20, 2007

  8:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  PMSXpress writes:

  CDee, going back to your comment about land values... The McLean's property (approx. 1,800 ft. of older woodframe 3 bedrm. home, built in '77) was purchased in 1982 for $172.2K. It is now valued by Boulder County for actual account value of $893.5K. Well, it'll be more than that if this crime is gotten away with, because the lot is larger now and no inconvenient neighbors can come in and disturb the nice view. I don't know what an unimproved lot is worth over there, but can bet it's gotta be in the $500-$600K range. So if one-third of the current value of say (on the low end just the help out the thieves) $500 K is $167K, times each of 25 years Stevens/McLean claim to have helped themselves to it, that would add up to about $4.2 million. Then throw in one-third of whatever the Kirlins have paid in property tax and HOA totals per year, multiply again by 25 years and add money that into the total sum.

  I like your thinking CDee!!! I think Edith and Richard need to get their checkbook out and settle up.

  Guess the fact that the value of their property has increased five-fold isn't enough for them. How sad for them. Not.

• December 21, 2007

  12:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  cpeterson writes:

  Could someone please post here any businesses, clubs, churches, etc. patronized by the McLeans.

  We need to ostracize them from Colorado by ostracizing them from their everyday activities.

  Anyone doing business, socializing or even worshiping with these thieved needs to be branded with THE STAIN OF MCLEAN!

• December 21, 2007

  6:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Raynelq writes:

  First of all, Mclean and Stevens had no business trespassing on their neighbors lot. The Mcleans are trying to make this appear as a country access case. The lot in question is a city lot not unlike a vacant lot you might have next to your lot. The Mcleans have to learn how to stay on their own property like good neighbors do. I am firmly on the Kirlin's side as to credibility.
  I believe the McLeans will never answer the obvious question: "Why can't you use your back door to access your backyard? The house guard on the day of the picnic/protest could."

• December 30, 2007

  1:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mrw650 writes:

  Posted by horsinaround: The judge in the case absolutely should be removed. I do hope the voters in Boulder County will step up when it's time for his re-election and unanimously vote him out of office.

  Don't forget, there were two Judges involved. JUDGE MORRIS SANDSTEAD denied the Kirlins due process of law (in the form of a Hearing) when he granted a TRO (restraining order) to STOP them from building the fence, which would have put an end to the adverse possession claim--in its infancy. The TRO was granted within hours. Thanks to that, McLean and Stevens were able to "railroad" the rest through Judge Klein. This would not have been an issue, period, without Judge Morris Sandstead's "help."

  Judge Morris Sandstead has committed a violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado, he should be impeached by the Legislature without delay and investigated by the FBI for public corruption, collusion, conspiracy against rights, and deprivation of rights under color of law--all FEDERAL crimes.