Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Boulder couple accuses former judge, mayor of land grab

Heath Urie, The Camera

Published November 15, 2007 at 10:34 a.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More Local News

More stories »

BOULDER — A couple in south Boulder who last month lost a big chunk of their million-dollar property when a district court judge awarded it to their neighbors said Wednesday they are prepared to appeal the decision all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Don and Susie Kirlin have been locked in a legal battle for more than a year over one of their two properties in the 2000 block of Hardscrabble Drive in the Shanahan Ridge subdivision.

The fight began in October 2006, when former district court judge and Boulder mayor Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens, decided to assert a little-known legal doctrine known as "adverse possession" to claim their neighbors' land as their own.

The law allows people to claim land that they have used for at least 18 years as their own if they are more "attached" to it than its true owners.

Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein last month ordered the Kirlins to sign over the title to about 34 percent of their 4,750-square-foot lot to their neighbors, who said in court that they knowingly trespassed on their neighbor's property unchallenged for 25 years. The land includes an access path.

McLean and Stevens have since asked the judge to award them an additional section of the Kirlins' property about 9 inches wide by 80 feet long, since the final ruling included only about half of the path. The couple also has asked for the Kirlins to pay their legal fees and court costs. A ruling on those requests is expected within a few weeks.

"This is no longer an issue of a former judge and his lawyer-wife being land grabbers," Don Kirlin said. "To me, this is an ethical abuse and immoral use of power — and possible connections — to be able to take something that doesn't belong to them."

The Kirlins, who since 1980 have lived just down the street from the disputed property, said they always intended to build their "dream house" on the lot once their youngest child left home.

"Time kept passing by," said Don Kirlin, a commercial airline pilot. "Twice over 23 years we met with architects and drew up plans to build (a house) on the lot."

Last fall, the Kirlins decided it was time to finally build on the property — which, they estimate, is worth between $800,000 and $1 million and features a clear view of surrounding open space and the nearby mountains.

Shortly after their decision to build, Susie Kirlin said, she attended a Fairview High School football game where a friend told her McLean and Stevens were talking with other neighbors about using the adverse-possession argument to take over a portion of the Kirlins' land.

The next day, the Kirlins received a permit from the city to build a fence to block access to their land. But just a few hours after the couple began putting down stakes, someone knocked on their door to serve them a restraining order signed by Boulder District Judge Morris Sandstead. The document, ordering an immediate halt to construction, was requested by McLean and Stevens.

"I thought, 'I've never met this individual, I've never seen this individual, I'm going to see (McLean) and see if we can talk this out,'" Don Kirlin said. "I introduced myself. ... I said, 'If there's an issue, let's work this out.' His only response was, 'We're gonna start an action.'"

The Kirlins said they understood the issue was that their neighbors wanted continued access through the property to their backyard. Don Kirlin said he offered to give the couple 5 feet of his land from the existing fence line to accommodate the concern, but his offer was rejected. He said he now thinks there was an ulterior motive for the lawsuit.

"I believe that their intent was not to have access to their backyard, as they claim, but actually to make my lot un-buildable so they would be able to maintain their view of the southwest."

The lot under dispute is about 55 feet wide by 80 feet long. The lot would be too small to build a house on if a third of it is taken away, the Kirlins say.

Neither McLean nor Stevens would comment about the case last week, and they could not be reached Wednesday.

The Kirlins maintain they had "absolutely no idea" anyone was using their property, or they would have acted to stop it. For their neighbors to claim adverse possession is a misuse of their backgrounds in law, the Kirlins say.

"They're not supposed to use their knowledge of the law for personal gain over laypeople," Don Kirlin said. "This person was supposed to be the moral compass of our community. While this person was a sitting judge, he was trespassing on his neighbor's property with the intent of taking it away from him. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral."

The Kirlins say they expect to file their appeal with the district court within the next week.

They expect their legal fees, already about $110,000, will top $250,000 if the case continues to the state Supreme Court for review. The entire appeal process could take three years, the couple said.

Comments

  • November 15, 2007

    1:09 p.m.

    Wapitislayer writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

  • November 15, 2007

    1:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    somebunnyluvsme writes:

    OK So it's Boulder! What a shock right? The adverse possession laws where instituted to keep tax revenue flowing, in the event that an absentee landowner died, or just abandoned his or her property much in the same way the Tax lien sale system work's. It was not intended to be used, as used here, to dissuade rightful property owners from building on their property. I believe that a good start to the Kirlins' action, would be to purchase a large and unruly herd of swine, to be set loose on what remains of their property. This of course would make two points. 1. Like minded neighbors, should live in close proximity to one another. 2. Boulder County's anti building mentality, is PIG HEADED at best.

  • November 19, 2007

    12:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LocalReader writes:

    Another heartwarming tale of the rich and connected having their way with the "little people", again. Shame on "Dick" McLean and Edith Stevens. Twice as much shame on Boulder District Judge Morris Sandstead, and triple shame on Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein for their duplicity in this travesty of justice. The best damnation I can offer is that these thieves have their property stolen in like manner. Say, how can the "little people" have judges removed from their jobs anyway?

  • November 20, 2007

    9:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    COnative1966 writes:

    What's crazy is this land is in a very well defined subdivision. It's really a lot in a nice Boulder neighborhood, Shanahan ridge.

    Here's a map of the area, with the red dot on the Kirlin's street:
    http://www.cohomefinder.com/p/80305/4...

    This isn't a typical mountain property lot line dispute. This is a subdivision like most of us live in! If they can take part of this lot, every lot is at risk!

    It's great to see the people of Boulder protest this. Do Dick and Edith really think they will be able to live there if this stands? Didn't they consider their neighbors in Shanahan Ridge would hate them for the rest of their days?

    The people there (except for Dick and Edith) seem very kind. I wish I could afford to live in Shanahan Ridge:
    http://www.cohomefinder.com/browse-ci...

  • November 20, 2007

    7:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LocalReader writes:

    By all means two judges need to be removed from their positions. Initialy halting the real land owners from building a fence to stop the trespassers was Boulder District Judge Morris Sandstead. Then, for ordering the real land owners to turn over thier land is Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein. The place to start is:
    The Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel is authorized to investigate allegations of misconduct by:
    1. Colorado Licensed Attorneys,
    2. Colorado Magistrates,
    3. Colorado Licensed Attorneys Serving as Municipal Court Judges,
    4. Allegations of the Unauthorized Practice of Law,
    5. Matters Related to an Applicant for Admission to the Colorado Bar, and
    6. Matters Related to the Colorado Attorneys' Fund For Client Protection.
    To file a complaint related to any of the above topics, you may contact the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel by calling (303) 866-6400, or toll free 1-877-888-1370. Please do not file a complaint in writing before contacting the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel by telephone. You will be informed if written information is helpful in evaluating your complaint. When you call the office regarding a complaint, you will be connected to the central intake division. A non-lawyer, support-staff person in the central intake division will initially question you regarding your allegations. The support-staff person may not provide legal advice or render an opinion regarding your complaint. Rather, your complaint will be assigned for investigation by an attorney in the central intake division. All of the attorneys working within the central intake division have extensive experience in the practice of law. Either the assigned attorney or a non-lawyer investigator will contact you regarding your complaint as soon as possible. Because of the number of complaints filed with the office, a delay of several days is possible. It is important to understand that Attorney Regulation Counsel cannot review a judicial decision made by a magistrate or judge. Additionally, the attorney assigned to your complaint does not represent you and cannot assist you in your legal matter. The jurisdiction of Regulation Counsel is limited to enforcement of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.
    When filing a complaint please have the following information available:
    Your full name, address and phone number.
    Attorney's full name, registration number, address, lawfirm, and phone number.
    (For assistance with this information click here.)
    Date of occurance and date of your awareness.
    Court location and case numbers (if you have a court case).
    When filing a complaint please be aware that:
    This office will NOT accept anonymous complaints.
    The attorney in question can NOT retaliate against you.
    Your grievance will require approximately 20 minutes to file.
    The average processing time for complaints is 10 days to 2 weeks.

  • November 21, 2007

    9:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peonyst writes:

    This is a complete travesty of justice. It is obvious that McLean and Stevens simply want to protect their view (and their inflated property value) by rendering the lot unbuildable, not for some massive property developer, but for a family that has been their neighbors for 20 years or more. I hope McClean and Stevens get what they deserve, that the Kirlins are reimbursed all their expenses, get to build their home, and that perhaps someone files a grievance with the state Bar for disbarment of Stevens - this actually has some power to stop bad behavior. In the meantime, it sounds as though the Kirlins need to obtain the best possible legal counsel - maybe a community fundraiser held on the disputed lot to help the Kirlins with their legal fees would knock some sense into the greedy "sharks" next door. This is why people distrust and loathe lawyers - misuse of their expertise for personal gain.

  • November 25, 2007

    12:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pk87 writes:

    People seem to forget that this IS legal. I was a surveyor for 11 years and surveyors, real estate agents, and a whole lot of other people know about adverse possession, so they aren't using their knowledge of the law wrongly. A lot of 'lay people' know about this. It's not as big a secret as it's being portrayed to be.

    If you live in a so-called well marked subdivision and your neighbor has a gate on the fence leading into your property, they too can claim adverse possession and get right of way easements. Also, if a neighbor builds a fence over the property line, onto your side, he can claim adverse possession as well after the time limit, which I thought was only seven years, but I guess it varies state to state.

    My suggestion to everyone is to get a real boundary survey, not an ALTA like most people get because it's the cheapest option and is almost worthless, and get you property corners staked out. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Know where you property lines lies and find and remove any encroachments the moment you purchase any property.

    What they are doing is morally wrong in my opinion but is totally legal.

  • December 9, 2007

    7:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mrw650 writes:

    I am a registered Democrat and I am absolutely appalled at the actions of these party chairs. They give the party a really bad name.

    Read what’s on the agenda of the national DNC website:
    http://www.dnc.org/a/national/honest_...

    If the Democrat National Committee is really sincere (and serious) about “honest government,” “ethics” and cleaning things up, they should be the first to demand prosecution for these Democrats who colluded and conspired to steal the land and violate the civil rights of Don and Susie Kirlin.

    Meanwhile, let’s tell the DNC that they will get no money from the rank and file until they see to it that justice is done. If they do nothing or make excuses for their buddies, then they are no better than the corrupt Republicans they bash.

  • December 17, 2007

    3:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fiesty writes:

    pk87, it's arguable whether this is legal or not, it's still shady since they are using adverse possession in a way it was not intended for. Further, McLean did NOT demonstrate or prove "attachment" at all- had no witnesses, and the purported tracks didn't show up until AFTER all the hullaboo started. He only claimed "attachment" AFTER the Kirlins decided to put up a fence that would block his view. Rather suspicious, don't you think? Just as suspicious as the judge who ruled in his favor without sufficient evidence, and just as suspicious as the judge who granted him an "emergency" injunction to prevent his neighbors from building a fence on their own land.