Land-grab dispute back at it
McLean, Stevens say path was not recently fabricated
Heath Urie, Daily Camera
Originally published 09:31 a.m., April 16, 2008
Updated 01:46 p.m., April 16, 2008
A Boulder County District Court judge charged with revisiting a controversial land dispute should not consider "outrageous" claims that Richard McLean and Edith Stevens lied to win their case, according to the couple's attorney.
In court documents submitted Tuesday, Boulder attorney Kim Hult responded pointedly to accusations made by Don and Susie Kirlin that their neighbors fabricated a path across their Hardscrabble Drive vacant lot.
The thin dirt trail, which has come to be known as "Edie's Path," was a critical piece of evidence that in part led Judge James C. Klein last fall to award about a third of one of the Kirlins' lots to McLean and Stevens under the longtime legal concept of "adverse possession."
The path, McLean and Stevens successfully argued at trial, represented more than the 18 years ofcontinuous use required by state law in order to assert the squatter's-rights law.
However, the Colorado Court of Appeals earlier this month granted a request by the Kirlins to send the case back to Klein based on "new evidence" that, they say, indicates the path was faked.
The Kirlins are asking Klein to overturn his trial court decision based on aerial and ground photographs of the disputed property and sworn affidavits of neighbors who say the path was a recent creation -- not the result of longtime use.
Hult's response to the Kirlins' package of evidence included an argument that Klein is under no obligation to find in favor of the Kirlins because they knew about, but failed to use, certain evidence in the original trial.
"In the apparent hope that the negative publicity garnered about the court's judgment will produce a new result on remand, Kirlin seeks to retry this case with long-available evidence to support arguments he made at trial," Hult wrote.
She said the Kirlins' evidence does not point to misconduct on the part of her clients.
"(The Kirlins') 'new' evidence proves little, other than that his witness cannot agree about when Edie's Path was allegedly 'fabricated,'" she wrote. "(They) further misunderstand the significance of the path, which was evidence of but one of McLean's many uses of the disputed property proved at trial."
She argued that the path, by itself, did not win the trial for McLean and Stevens.
"Kirlin, therefore, fails to prove -- by clear and convincing evidence -- that the alleged 'fabrication' of the path would have altered the outcome at trial had he chosen to introduce his 'new' evidence then," Hult wrote.
Hult's filing also includes more than 10 sworn affidavits in support of McLean and Stevens -- including two signed by McLean and Stevens themselves.
"My wife, Edie Stevens, and I have not taken any action to alter the condition of Edie's Path or to 'fabricate' that path after the filing of this case," McLean wrote.
Other witnesses include several former law clerks for McLean -- a former Boulder district judge -- who wrote that they recalled attending parties at the couple's home in which a nearby path was used.
On Tuesday, McLean said the paperwork "says it all" and declined to talk about the pending case.
Susie Kirlin said she hadn't seen the response Tuesday night and didn't want to comment except to say she feels she and her husband have a "strong case."
Both of the attorneys involved in the case said it would be inappropriate to comment.
Andy Low, the Kirlins' attorney, has until April 24 to file a response to Hult's brief.
Klein has been urged by the Colorado Court of Appeals to act quickly to resolve the Kirlins' request. The judge has the option to hold a limited hearing with each side, a full hearing complete with witnesses or to make a decision about the case after reviewing the written arguments.
The Kirlins have said they plan to continue the appeals process if Klein rules against them again.
April 16, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
OF COURSE!!! Cause you could see by the picture that the path has been used for 10 to 15 days, 'er years, before the pic was taken!
April 16, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
Dick and Edie, just give the land back and you'll be done with this. Sadly, I expect the virtues of honesty and fairness are lost on you.
April 16, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
HEY KLIEN!
Boulder County voters are watching VERY closely...
April 16, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
blondiearvada writes:
Well, Klien can just expect that he will not be voted back into office. As far as Dick and Edie are concerned, they are some of the meanest people on this planet, and what comes around goes around. Whether she fabricated the trail or not, it is not their land, period.
What evil people they are.
April 16, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Strange wording.... "My wife, Edie Stevens, and I have not taken any action to alter the condition of Edie's Path or to 'fabricate' that path after the filing of this case," McLean wrote."
Key wording... they claim they did not take any action to alter or fabricate the path AFTER the filing of the case.
So, did they take action to alter or fabricate the path during the weeks PRIOR to them filing the case? The law requires that the disputed land by in continuous use for 18 years. Strange how they qualify their claims about fabricating it to be limited to AFTER their filing of the case.
That allows them to dodge any claims of perjury, however it requires that people miss the key wording of their fabrication AFTER the filing of the case.
April 16, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
If I were the Judge on this case:
A. I would be very aware of publicity.
B. I would question myself and my motivation in determining a verdict.
Does anyone know if he has been investigated for anything in the past, such as bribery?
April 16, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
bigjking69 writes:
Again I see that common sense isn't so common in Boulder. Once again you have people thinking they are intitled to something they didn't pay for. What happened to the owners rights? If lawyers would stop taking such ridiculous cases, our courts wouldn't be clogged. Instead of socializing medical care, we should look at socializing lawyers.
April 16, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
CHunter writes:
I guess my question is that if the office staff used the path, as well as the two Liars...errr lawyers, at these parties then aren't they also guilty of trespass on the Kirlin's property?
April 16, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Quagmate writes:
Their witness list is a joke, I actually laughed. Former emplyees and friends? Odd the Nieghbors singed with the Kirlins. Who would know better about a path? Your employees and friends or the neighbors... hmmm. What is the Judge waiting for? Even the Appeals Courts told Klien to resolve this quickly.
April 16, 2008
10:34 a.m.
ruckus writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
its so nice to see boulder in the news again. I am going to walk on their lawn and drag my feet and have my freinds say I have done it for nineteen years and then take them to court to take their property away from them. anyone want to join me and we can split the land
April 16, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
nobodyman writes:
I hope Stevens and McLean get hit by a bus.
April 16, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
why would you punish a dog? Twisted MF'er, belong in solitaire
April 16, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
tekrat2001 writes:
What makes people think that it's all right to use someone else's stuff (land or any other possession) without asking and then to claim that it should be theirs?
I know that I'm trying to teach my kids that it's not all right to use or take what's not theirs. And now if they read about this case my arguments are out the door.
Just because the owner didn't tell these people to stay off their property (which is might neighborly I might say) shouldn't allow the trespassers to become the owner.
BOOOOOO! That stupid law should have been removed from the books long ago.
April 16, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
This is interesting. Has anyone seen any commentary positively supporting the land grabbers? Where there may be rational nexus involving the law the overwhelming public opinion should, I believe, count for something.
This should be somewhat of a wake up call to all of you who feel this is a travesty. Get out there and vote your opinions. Have dialog with those who represent you at all levels of government. Hold them accountable by re-electing or electing another in their place. Then, maybe, "We the People" can reclaim our count(r)y...
April 16, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
these people are low lifes they just need to give the land back a quit acting like they are in the right.
April 16, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
This is so similar to my experiences in Steamboat Springs it is extremely upsetting to me. Apparently use of deceit to grab land is as old as the concept of land ownership. One friend with land in Vermont told me her neighbors moved rocks used to establish markers and an MD I met in WI told me that their neighbor built a long fence 3 feet into their property. My former neighbor in Steamboat put up a fence 60 feet from his property (on my side of the street) and then claimed rights to exclusive use of all the city land in between.
They call it a "taking by steps". The "by steps" is a key part of the strategy. Ours had many steps. For instance, they set off of fireworks over our house, they called the police to get them to make our 9 year old son vacate city land where he was playing, and they called the police to complain that I discussed the weather with their worker. What they did in Steamboat was try to claim that I was a "b____" when I asserted our rights to use of the street and city land by basically claiming that I didn't "need" it and they did. They said I was mentally ill for objecting to the taking by steps and that we had a "feud". They actually claimed I "molested" the woman although we were never alone, I didn't follow her, I didn't call or email her, and I didn't threaten her. It got so bad that we had to move away, selling our house to one of their lawyers, (below value), and since then our old house, sold again at profit, has been owned only by lawyers.
In our case, the city and county participated in the taking by steps. One result is that there are 3 buildings in Steamboat on private property that aren't on the tax rolls.
This was incredibly traumatic and painful to me and hurt my husband and kids also.
April 16, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
PS Flyfish
Voting the judge out won't compensate the neighbors. They need to sue him. He doesn't have immunity for acts out of office.
April 16, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
landowner writes:
The rule of thumb should be if you didn't buy it you don't own it. We have an interesting situation in northwest Routt County. There is a 21 acre parcel that had seen co-use between neighbors and was fenced to itself. The landowner of this property died(older widow lady) The parcel was put on the market to settle the estate. A neighboring landowner didn't like the market price and is filing adverse possession of the property owned by the estate. The docket number for this in the Routt county District court is 2008CV42. The taxes were always paid by the widow lady and her late husband and there was never a question of who owned the property. It appears that adverse possession is cheaper than outright purchase of another's property!!
April 16, 2008
11:43 a.m.
T1anda writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Hola writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
wyoreader writes:
Apparently the law needs to be updated. People from all over the US buy property in other states and pay taxes on them. Just because they do not occupy their land doesn't make it not theirs. These "thieves" took advantage of the owners not being in Colorado for personal gain. I think it's bologna that people can legally take what is not theirs and never was. If they believe after 18 years of trespassing on someone elses land gives them the right to it then they should be charged 18 years worth of taxes and pay a fair market value to the legal owners. I would assume there is a title with the legal locations associated with the land. Question - if you buy a house and want to put up a fence where none exists between the new house and a neighbors house does that give you the right to put the fence on their property? Some of the old laws in place need to be revamped so dishonest people cannot use them to their advantage. GIVE THE LAND BACK TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS!!! McClean and Stevens need to go steal valuable property from the state - walk your path in the forest and claim that land. Hopefully the judge will rethink his original decision and do what is right.
April 16, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
scotjam writes:
I am truly amazed at the vitriolic and malicious ignorance, wrongly directed at McClean and Stevens, that is spewed forth in this blog. The law of adverse possession has been with us for nearly 500 years. It is not new. It is not unknown. It is not only rarely applied. Indeed, it is codified. Where I grew up in rural Colorado, most people knew of the doctrine. Many farmers and ranchers who were aware that the public, or individuals, used certain routes over their land, closed those routes, placing chains across it, on a regular basis. They did so to prevent claims of adverse possession or rights or way, easement, or even title, by particular individuals, or the public in general. Adverse possession is a doctrine to clear title to land of one person that is used by another for over 18 years without objection. In this sense, it is simply a statute of limitations for bringing an action in ejectment or for trespass. The Kirlins failed, for 18 years, to take action to prevent the wrongful use of their land. That they cannot now complain is neither surprising nor wrong.
It is truly outrageous that most of the comments urge that the judge reject well established law and rule based on uninformed public opinion. What is more appalling is that they urge that the judge not be retained in the next election because he followed the law. They hope to force, through threat and intimidation, what the law does not allow. We do not try cases in courts of public opinion. Rather, we try them in "courts of law." For those who find the law offensive, talk to your state legislators and ask them to repeal this age-old doctine; do not condemn the judge who has no choice but to apply the law. And do not condemn those who use the law to protect their own interests.
April 16, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Hey scotjam, you FORGOT TO MENTION that the thieves LIED about the alleged path. Slip your little mind?
April 16, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
The Common Law of adverse possession was intended to grant clear title in cases where boundaries were misplaced or difficult to establish; when property was abandoned; and when owners were not locatable. Tests for these included using the land and seeing if anyone made objection, but this shouldn't be the only test. The land in question has clear boundaries and clear ownership. Make no mistake, if the takers weren't lawyers and a former judge, the thought of taking the land wouldn't have occurred to them.
April 16, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
nativegirl writes:
scotjam,
Maybe I missed it, but what right did McLean/Stevens have to trespass to begin with??
April 16, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
scotjam,
Maybe the judge acted in accordance with the law but I do not know all of the details. But I believe most of the posters here agree that McClean and Stevens were morally wrong in their actions and believe that they took advantage of a law that was not intended to be applied in that way. Just because a law gives someone the right to do something, doesn't make it morally right. Why should someone have to put up a fence or chain to establish ownership? If I forgot to lock my house when I leave, does that give someone the right to enter and claim it as their own?
April 16, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
The law of Adverse Possession is Common Law and as such predates the invasion of America from Europe.
April 16, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Scott writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
dcolon47 writes:
The people of of Boulder would gain the respect of the rest of the state if they would vote this crooked judge out when his term is up
April 16, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fireball writes:
This issue, like life in general, is quite simple: "Do The Right Thing". Now is the opportunity for Judge Klein, McLean and Stevens to follow this simple rule. There is hope for Judge Klein but given their thieving past, no hope for M & S.
April 16, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
So how could they abandon the lot they are living on without vacating the lot? These laws are meant for rural right of way not for large municipalities with plotted lots. Judge Klein made a horrible interpretation of the law.
April 16, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
scotjam, if you don't understand why this upsets people, just wait til you get ripped off and see how it feels. It's not nice. As far as it being the law that these people have the right to own their neighbors property without paying for it, well, that doesn't make it right does it? No matter how old the rule/law/custom is. Remember, slavery was the law of the land for a long time too. Right is right and sometimes the law is an ass.
April 16, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
gr8fuldude writes:
Earl - Count me in on the foot dragging. I'll buy beers afterward.
April 16, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kat2denver writes:
Scotjam - Which one are you? McLean or Stevens?
April 16, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
I will never forget moving into my new home,That night as I was unpacking the truck.My new next door neighbor would not leave me alone.Following me around asking me if I was married.I avoided this woman like she had the plague.Well I moved in feb 1990.By may of the same year I was arrested and charged with rape.My attorney worked day and night for one full year to keep me out of the hands of the criminal justice system.I will tell you why I am innocent,because I am gay.This woman ruined my life her husband threatened me with a baseball bat and golf clubs.His reasoning was he did not want me as a neighbor.Then he sued me and said being gay reduced how much his property was worth.My attorney responded back with violating my civil rights and the tapes of them threatening me disappeared.But the police reports did not.So after three very long unhappy years.She had to admit that I was not the father of her children like she said I was.Also had to admit she lied to the police,also admitted to calling my employer and telling him I was a rapist.The latter one cost me my career,I now live with the fear she could find me again.I move fairly often to keep ahead of her finding me.By the way since this happened I have a new name and occupation.I never call the police till it is the last resort.By the way the crazy woman's husband died and she is looking for a new husband.Just a warning to all the single men out there.I hate living like this but I did embarass her.She was a horrible and truly vindictive woman.By the way to all the lawyers who helped me through this I am truly greatful for my freedom.I treasure and cherish it everyday of my life.To the horrible nasty woman,who attempted to destroy my life.What goes around comes around,also need to get god in your life and get right with the lord.
April 16, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
my3,
If you want to live in europe the go we are not stopping you. The world was diffrent then and we are here now, so shut the #%^& up.
April 16, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
PJ - very nice. LMAO!
April 16, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Scotjam,
Just let me know when you're fixing to set foot on my land. I have a pistol and a shovel. You won't be missed.
The common law of adverse possession or "squatter's rights" does not apply to modern urban lands. It only applies to vacant land where the owners are either unaware they own the land or deceased without heirs who have any interest in that land.
The Kirlins obviously want to keep their land or get a fair price for it. Your rich clients lied and abused the court system to steal it. I believe Kirlin's preparations for the first "trial" were somewhat lacking because no one could believe that judge Klein would be such a complete moron.
Judge Klein misinterpreted the law and is clearly lacking sense. Too bad he can't be readily thrown off the bench for being an imbecile. He also needs to be disbarred.
April 16, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jmadison writes:
To Scotjam and anyone else who sides with these crooks-
The principle of the Colorado law of adverse possession was enacted to encourage landowners to put their property to valuable use. It's the same principle responsible for vacant land having a higher tax rate. It is also used when there is a true discrepancy over boundary lines. However, in this case it is clear who the true owner of the land is. Also, taking an occasional stroll across a neighbor's property could only be construed as a valuable use by crooked lawyers and a crooked judge who are trying to make a mockery of the law.
In addition, Colorado law DOES NOT require a landowner to fence, post signs or take any other action to prevent trespassers from entering his/her land. It is the responsibility of the TRESPASSER to determine whether or not they are on public or private land.
In my opinion this couple AND the judge belong in jail. Society doesn't need people like this running free among us especially when they are allowed to manipulate our laws and do damage to citizens in this outrageous way!
April 16, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
bobba writes:
After reading these comments and following the public backlash, I really can't believe McLean and Stevens are willing to persist in their land-grab scheme. How can they face their neighbors on a daily basis?
Don't they care if their neighbors hate them?
Don't they want to live in a community held together by kindness, respect and trust?
Would they rather live in a community full of animosity, fear and duplicity?
Their manipulation of the law, and apparrantly the facts, is disgusting. Even if they happened to be right by the letter of the law, they are wrong by any standard of common decency. They need to give up while they're behind.
April 16, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
LamboMan writes:
happymike, we've heard your sad story already, and WHAT THE HE77 DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE?????
April 16, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
"The Kirlins obviously want to keep their land or get a fair price for it. Your rich clients lied and abused the court system to steal it. I believe Kirlin's preparations for the first "trial" were somewhat lacking because no one could believe that judge Klein would be such a complete moron."
Well said. It is the only think about this that could make sense.
April 16, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
xeeian writes:
We are a nation of laws. Judges are not there to legislate from the bench. Their job is to interpret laws, not decide what is *just* based on their or the public's opinions.
You liberals just can't deal with this.
April 16, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
Now i know why denver chases homeless people off the grates they dont want the claiming "adverse possession" and building a box home on that location.
Can these poeple not afford to go buy land?
April 16, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
Lying is not acceptable. Nothing liberal about that.
April 16, 2008
2:42 p.m.
CWW writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
While I agree that the judges should be impartial to public opinion, the reality is that the publicity of this case will cost him. It seems like people don't vote for a judge as much as they occasionaly vote against one. That will be the case here.
April 16, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Rdtrip2Europa writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
newshound writes:
You can't fault the judge per passing judgment on his interpretation of the law. If the rule of Adverse Possession applies, then McLean & Stevens got the land using the oldest and dirtiest rule in the book. It happens all the time. It sucks, it's thievery, but it happens. If they lied about gaining adverse possession, they should be locked up for fraud.
April 16, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
ruckus writes:
Rdtrip2Europa,
but then it wouldn't be an effective message, duh!
April 16, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Mclame & Stevens should consider themselves lucky the Kirlins didn't use the "Make My Day" law. That's the only "law" that should have been applied in this case.
April 16, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Quagmate writes:
The key phrase is "interpretation of the law." However judges must look at the "intent of the law." That is where the mistake was made.
This law is intended for rural areas where finding the owner may not be possible. If this is the intent of the law, then clearly McLean & Stevens could have easily found out who owned the property. This was a test of the law and the judge failed. The Judge applied the law outside it's original framework.
In addition I have a problem with "land use." When I consider land use as a measure I think about, logging, mining, agriculture or some improvement to the land. A simple dirt path is a real stretch by any rational measure. If McLean & Stevens had improved the land, even erected a playground or something like that, it might have been used. A simple dirt path however could have been used by anyone, and just because someone claimed to make it isn't proof.
The judge really misinterpreted a lot of facts in this case, from the laws intent to land use, this was a very poorly judged case.
April 16, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
scotjam writes:
It would be helpful if those who comment here were conversant with the law. Some claim to be, but I would disagree with them. Adverse possession must be possession that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous occupancy of property against one who has a superior ownership interest in that property. Title to land is acquired by adverse possession as a result of the lapse of the Statute of Limitations for bringing ejectment. That is, throwing them out for trespass. It contemplates that one person may be an evildoer (even though some have “pure hearts”), and puts the onus on the owner to to bring an action to remove them from his/her property. One commentator here is correct that the legal theory underlying the vesting of title by adverse possession is that title to land must be certain. But the basis of the rule is that since the owner has, by his or her own fault and neglect, failed to protect the land against the hostile actions of the adverse possessor, an adverse possessor who has treated the land as his or her own for a significant period of time is recognized as its owner.
The posters here should be writing their legislators to change the law, not taking cheap shots at a judge who is trying to do his job. It takes a great deal of courage to do what he views is right when it appears that this may cost him his job when he comes up for retention. Perhaps we should just have Zogby or Gallup, or some other polling firm to poll public opinion do determine cases, simply doing away with the legal system. If you don’t like this law, don’t vote out the judge. Rather, write your State House and Senate members and demand that the law be changed.
Whether McClean/Stevens are morally incorrect in choosing to avail themselves of this law is another debate for another time. My point here is that you should not vilify what you don’t understand, and should not assume a judge is being “bribed” and is dishonest, just because you disagree with the law and feel that an unjust result has occurred.
On another note, I am amazed at those of you who believe that M & S are lying simply because the Kirlins allege it is so. Perhaps they did, perhaps not. Perhaps the Kirlins are falsifying evidence, perhaps not. That is what the judge will have to determine. And it may be that even if they did lie about the path, other factors in the case will still support an adverse possession claim. We’ll all have to wait and see what occurs.
April 16, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
scotjam,
'Whether McClean/Stevens are morally incorrect in choosing to avail themselves of this law is another debate for another time.'
Wrong. It's an entirely appropriate to consider their moral claim as well as their legal one. Notice McClean didn't say anything other than to say it was all in the paperwork. He obviously know's he's in the wrong whether or not he has the legal right to steal property.
I'm all for getting rid of the adverse possession law in the future, but the fact that it's legal doesn't excuse Mclean's ripping people off.
LEGAL != RIGHT
April 16, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Anyone else have this mental picture of scotjam leg-humping Klein in-between keystrokes?
April 16, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
ScotJam-
It comes down to this simple fact: McLean and Stevens are scum. And I have two middle fingers raised and pointed right at them.
Everyone (except for you and mclean and steven's personal a$$ kissers) looks at it like this: if it looks like b.s., smells like b.s., maybe it must b.s.
Yeah, we can petition our legislators, town councilors, etc...but that won't help the Kirlins...and when lame ass lawyers and business and land lobbies petition on their own...who comes out the winner.
What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...?
...a good start.
April 16, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
scotjam - I'll take the "less conversant with the law" crowd over your attempt at justification of theft anyday. At least we know right vs wrong. As was mentioned earlier, the intent of this law was not considered and the judge should have recused himself based on his past relationships with Mc/Stevens. Cronyism & shennanigans at it's worst.
You're just a prostitute trying to defend other prostitutes (full copyright credit to Scott).
April 16, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
BillK writes:
"Adverse possession must be possession that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous occupancy of property against one who has a superior ownership interest in that property. Title to land is acquired by adverse possession as a result of the lapse of the Statute of Limitations for bringing ejectment. That is, throwing them out for trespass."
It's more than a little hard to eject people for trespassing via a path that DID NOT EXIST.
Yes, ignore all that photographic proof, it wasn't mentioned during the first trial.
I suppose we should just leave people to rot in prison when DNA evidence is found that exonerates them; after all that didn't come up during their first trial either, so tough cookies.
April 16, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
scotjam writes:
When a person has no argument, he resorts to labeling, epithets, name-calling, personal vilification and verbal abuse. There has been that aplenty to my postings. I've never entered the "blogosphere" before, but was compelled to do so here by what I saw posted. I thought that my comments might provoke some thought, reason, and dialogue concerning the law, its nature and application, rather than naked, raw emotion. I was wrong. And another thing -- whoever told you that legal equals right, or that that the law always produced just results. That isn't the real world. But what we have beats the alternatives. If courts and law should follow popular opinion at any given point in history, then those Nazi judges who were convicted at Nuremburg should have gone free - they were just carrying out the will of the people.
April 16, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
I have to agree with Scottjam on this. Yes, these people are scum, plain and simple. However, it is up to the judge to rule based on what the law says, not what he "feels" is right.
The Mclean's ought to be ashamed of themsleves. Just because something is legal doesn't make it the ethical or right thing to do. But, the judge is bound strictly by the law.
April 16, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
I still say this law has no place or precedence in a plotted subdivision. This is not a rural lot. There also were payments of taxes and I wonder if they have an HOA too. This is an old judge with a new buddy judge by my estimation. We need to find out if the two judges knew each other at all.
April 16, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
FallyBerry writes:
I think the biggest problem I have with this is that those people landscaped THEMSELVES out of their own back yard. THAT is ridiculous. You don't just assume that you can use the empty lot next door to get to your property because you were a complete moron when it came to the design of your own actual property.
April 16, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
I wonder if the Kirlin's have any reasonable evidence that they ever gave Stevens permission to use the land. When permission is given, adverse possession can no longer be claimed because the use of the land is no longer hostile.
April 16, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
ScotJam you're a riot. You whine about people resorting to name calling when they disagree with you and two sentences later you call them Nazis! Classic. LOL.
April 16, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
scotjam writes:
Hola - I'm afraid you missed my point altogether.
April 16, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
ruckus writes:
scotjam,
i'm sure you would have a different opinion if it happened to you and got the sh!t end of the stick.
April 16, 2008
4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
You people keep attacking scotjam, but he is right! He NEVER said the people were justified in taking the land or that it was the right thing to do. He merely pointed out that it was the Legal thing to do and that the judge is bound by the law. Legal is not always ethical...but a judge must rule base strictly on the law, not how he feels.
April 16, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
Scotjam wrote: 'The Kirlins failed, for 18 years, to take action to prevent the wrongful use of their land. That they cannot now complain is neither surprising nor wrong.'
Can't say it makes a whole lot of sense, but it sounds like justification to me.
April 16, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
ruckus writes:
didnt attack scotjam, but when it comes to "law" (the magic word, no more thinking required) in certain cases like this, the law is the doctor giving the Kirlins a prostate checkup and the doctor has both hands on their shoulders...and im sure their insurance didnt cover that...
April 16, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
Scottjam
1. The legal system is broken. There is no downside to perjury in a civil case. Prosecutors don't prosecute it and the appeals courts have ruled that they cannot be forced to do so. A lawyer, or a former judge would know that. You clearly know it.
2. This is not the blogosphere. This is a modern form of letters to the editor. Blogs have written on the subject, including mine, thecoloradoindex.com. It generates a lot of readership.
3. Citizens do have a right to vote judge Klien out of office, and that might happen. He has to rule on the law and the facts, and should do so. If the facts suggest perjury has occurred, the best way for him to save his job is for him to make a perjury referral. That puts the onus on the prosecutor.
April 16, 2008
5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Quagmate writes:
The law must be looked at in-context to it's intent. Why are car speeds regulated on highways? Safety. Well then, we should regulate the speed of jets also. Right? I mean speed is speed, so the law must also apply to the sky as well as the ground.
This law is the same. I was meant for rural land use, NOT in the cities. It astonishes me that a judge would make this ruling when the law was never designed to have this effect. Did the Judge follow the letter of the law? NO. His interpretation over-ruled the laws intent. This is exactly why there is an appeals court, to clean up theses kinds of messes.
April 16, 2008
6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
PJ - excellent rhythmical wit
ScotJam - you are correct, though I loathe agreeing with you - what people should be doing is writing their legislators and demanding that the law be changed, because if there were no merit to the law as it exists, the judge, acting in accordance with the law he knows only too well, would never have ruled in favor of the dirtbags - er, I mean M&S.
So I've revealed that I too think the Kirlin's got a bad deal under the law, and I'm hoping they can prove their case and have the ruling overturned. Still, in the back of my mind, I cannot help but wonder if the move by M&S isn't motivated in utter greed, and I think that's what so fiercely frustrates and angers most who read this story.
April 16, 2008
6:30 p.m.
Fresh writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
I don't care what scotjam says.
KLIEN, BEWARE.
The voting citizens of Boulder County are watching VERY, VERY closely. If you continue to side with the lying, thieving scum, you'll soon be unemployed.
April 16, 2008
8:43 p.m.
The_Punnisher writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
April 16, 2008
8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
pwern writes:
This whole situation is just wrong on so many levels. In a more honest time, McLean, Stevens and that scumbag judge would all be tarred and feathered for this, and the whole community would participate.
Revive vigilantism as the primary method of dealing with this breed of human parasite and our society will be a better place. We obviously can't rely on our legal system as a source of conflict resolution. These people are lower than cockroaches, and need to be dealt with in the same fashion.
April 16, 2008
9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
robktherev writes:
ScotJam-
I appreciate that you are speaking out against the mob-mentality that's dominated the debate in this case. However, the "morality" or popularity of a decision in the eyes of the public is relevant to any good judge's consideration of the issues. I urge you to recall the words of President Andrew Jackson:
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
The judicial branch of government is, in the final analysis, a political branch of government. It has no power without the support of the people. Therefore, if the great mass of people are morally offended by a result in a case, the decision diminishes the power of the court; regardless of the pedigree of the legal justification. That's not to say that judges should never offend - we wouldn't have the Civil Rights cases if they didn't have the courage to stand up to the mob. However, they should do so sparingly and it should be for a high purpose.
Here, you have a court sticking its neck out by indulging what appears to be a rather questionable adverse possession claim. I'm not intimately familiar with the evidence in the case, but I know that "open and notorious" and "exclusive" are elements in the common law and have to be established for the entire statutory term. Here you have someone occasionally walking across a field with no visible path, in a manner similar to how everyone else in south Boulder accesses city/county open space. It seems to me that the judge probably could have found an easy out if he had wanted to find one . . .
April 17, 2008
1:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
jmadison writes:
Scotjam:
The way this particular judge has interpreted the law of adverse possession is what is in question here. Was it proper to assert that a small "dirt path" is grounds for "actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous OCCUPANCY of property against one who has a superior ownership interest in that property. Title to land is acquired by adverse possession as a result of the lapse of the Statute of Limitations for bringing ejectment."
How can you eject someone from your property if they are not actually residing on it and have erected no structures on it but are merely crossing over it from time to time? And only doing so for recreational purposes without any precise regularity?
If this is how the law is to be interpreted, then virtually anyone who occasionally crosses over someone else's property (side yard, backyard etc.)will be entitled to claim it as their own after 18 years.
YOU ARE WRONG in your legal interpretation AND SO WAS THE JUDGE!
April 17, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
mountains writes:
Scotjam:
You're a little behind the times. House Bill 1148 cleared the House 63-1 and is sitting on Ritter's desk. Ritter already signed a second bill resulting from this injustice, House Bill 1193.
Furthermore, if you had taken the time to actually read what the current Colorado law of adverse possession states and compare that to Judge Klein's ruling (as in actually read it) you would already be aware of Klein's blatant misinterpretation of the law.
Klein ruled the surveyor who saw no path was "non-credible" and accepted testimony from the surveyor hired by the McThieves. Testimony that we now know was false, that surveyor has signed an affidavit stating that he was pressured to lie. Klein accepted testimony from those who stood to benefit from the adverse possession and casually dismissed testimony from those who opposed it as "non-credible". He (and you ScotJam) also casually overlooked the fact that the Kirlins routinely visited the property and, like the two professional surveyors, saw no evidence of use by the McThieves. How can they act on something they didn't know about and couldn't see? The McThieves' alleged use of the property was neither exclusive nor notorious. By the letter of the law, the McThieves didn't stand a chance except for these facts... McLean is a former Boulder judge and Stevens a former Boulder lawyer, and this was tried in Boulder by a current Boulder judge. Enter House Bill 1193 which prevents this biased situation from occurring again and has already been signed by Ritter.
ScotJam, start reading up on the actual law and the actual ruling before criticizing the appropriate reaction of others. Nothing destroys a good argument like the facts. Laws are rooted in the will of the people, and as anyone not living under a rock can attest Klein's ruling was grossly out of touch with not only the law's original intent, but also in how it applies to the current will of the people. So out of touch in fact that House Bill 1148 was created to hopefully prevent similar atrocities in the future.
April 17, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
Well now, hang on there a minute JMadison - my wife goes to Wal-Mart dang near every day, parks in roughly the same spot, walks just about the same path into, and out of the store. Before Klein is drummed off the bench, maybe I ought to file suit to gain 1/3rd of their property :)
April 17, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
mountain,
Thanks for the House Bill references. I'll look them up. Its good to know this has been addressed legislatively.
April 17, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Gosh-
Most of you people are so silly. You KEEP attaking scotjam. It DOESN'T matter if the law is most SHOULD be applied to a rural setting...that's not the way it's written. The "outrage" of the people is NOT enough to affect a ruling until people get off their lazy butts and CHANGE the law. Judges are bound by the law, period. Tarring and feathering the land-grabbers...ok, but for Christ sakes...be logical. I'm glad that the legislature is changing this dumb law. Had they done it earlier, then clearly Klien would have ruled differently.
I get people are upset about this, you should be. But to base an argument on emotion rather than logic is the sign of a weak mind. Rather than blasting the people charged with upholding the law, even if it's a bad one, and those who are able to look at the situation logically... perhaps you should get together to actually change the law(s) you think are unfair.
April 17, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
JB, judges are supposed interpret the law and if voters don't like the way they do it, they aren't required to re-elect them (and they don't need a law degree to cast a vote). If Klein can't handle criticism, he's in the wrong line of work.
April 17, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Hola-
I didn't say that Klein can't handle criticism. What I'm saying is that being mad at the judge for upholding a law you don't like is stupid. Change the law, not the judge. I read the adverse possesion law and honestly it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.
Have you bothered to look at Klein's record beyond this case? What if he's been a very good judge? The voters are really better voting him off because he, did what he was supposed to?
This is my point exactly. Basing an argument or making decisions based on emotion rather than logic is what people with feeble minds do.
April 17, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
JB, what you do not mention is the judge dismissed some evidence and used other. He showed favoritism in his ruling. Yes, most of these posts are based on outrage, but the facts in the case should have proved the point in the first trial that the land grabbers were not telling the truth. Affidavits by other neighbors were ignored. NOW, the thieves lawyers want to say nana nana naaanaaaaa, you should of brought it up in the first trial.
I disagree with those that say all lawyers are scum. We are all prostitutes in the manner that when we work at our job, we are selling our services. However, in this case, where the facts are so obviously in favor of the Kirlins, these lawyers are scum, lairs, and prostitutes in the worst sense when they sell themselves for such a despicable crime. It just shows you can find someone to do anything.
April 17, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
And what I forgot to mention, the judge should not be retained NOT because of applying the law, but the unfair manner he did it. It is not the law as much as it is the judge and thieves in this case.
April 17, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
GWM-
I briefly looked at the first case and it seems like the judge follwed proper protocall in the manner he allowed evidence. I could be mistaken. The fact is, the Kirlins aren't lawyers and they screwed a bunch of stuff up as it pertained to their case -- ands OF COURSE the Mc's has everything airtight since they are lawyers. The judge doesn't have the luxury of considering that.
Again, Klien should be evaluated on his record, not this one case. I haver no idea what his record looks like -- I just hope people are smart enough to look at that. Although, based on the comments here...I fear that there will be very little logical or intelligent thought.
April 17, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
Is there a link where someone can read the adverse possession law for Colorado? From what I understand, it's partly a common law thing which, I gather means it's kind of an accumulation of relevant precedence. Also, is there a link to Kleins original ruling on this case so I can double check his citations?
I don't know how much leeway the judge had to interpret the law in the case, but from the photographic evidence I've seen, the facts were misjudged. It seems perfectly rational to me to weigh this against him when considering voting for him or not.
April 17, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
JB, good discussion. RE: the protocol. I am not familiar with law in general or this law in particular, but I watched a lot of Perry Mason and I *did* sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, so that gives me a little latitude here. My impression is that the protocol the judge should follow is to use his discretion in using this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence. Since none of us sat in his chair or wore his shoes, we are only getting anecdotal information. In my humble opinion and 99.9% of those following this case, the judge used improper discretion in following his protocol.
It takes many, many 'attaboys' to make someone a good person. It only takes one 'ahsh!t' to wipe it all away. The judge in this case knows all too well, he is being watched. It may not be fair, but his future will be defined by what he does with this case. He can follow the law *AND* do the right thing by reversing his first mistake. That would be the correct thing to do.
Comment please.
April 17, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
The McThieves DID NOT occupy the property "exclusively" or
"continuously" as required by the state law.End of story.
Klien DID NOT rule according to the law, as some here claim.
I don't care anything about any other case, this one speaks volumes about this judge.
Voters in Boulder County:
DO NOT RETAIN JUDGE KLIEN IN NOVEMBER.
April 17, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
GWM-
I'd have to look at the transcripts in detail, which honestly I don't care enough to do since I don't live in Boulder County and the adverse possesion laws are being reppealed.
RickyLee, I don't mean to be insulting but your overly-emotional lack of logic is showing through. The Mc's apparently DID have the evidence to say they had used the property "continuously." Whether or not it was fabricated is what's being looked at now, but at the time that is what the judge had to go on.
It's also important to note that the law, as you said above indicates that the property must be used "exclusively" or
"continuously" not AND! This is a big deal. Anyhow, I think we all agree that it's a stupid law and that the Mc's are pretty rotten...but let's try to be logical and intellegent when evaluating the minutia of the case.
I'll say it again -- emotional reactions are the sign of a feeble mind.
April 17, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jmadison writes:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/...
This should lift everyone's spirit on this forum, except perhaps Scotjam and the crooked attorneys and scheming land grabbers.
If it weren't for the overwhelming public outrage these bills would have never been introduced. Thanks to everyone for speaking out!
April 17, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
JB, you are still giving very calm responses. But even though some respondents on this thread are overly emotional they are putting forth some facts with the emotion. The judge accepted the thieves evidence that other neighbors said was not continuous and was only fabricated for the lawsuit. He chose to not consider that evidence. It was not used exclusively because the owners visited their property.
These facts go back to the protocol issue. Sure, the judge can use his discretion to accept some evidence and not other. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!! Sorry, I did not mean to shout. He (most of us feel) used his discretion and protocol IMPROPERLY in this case. I personally feel (and is only opinion) he showed improper professional courtesy in this matter. He should not be retained. If he reverses his decision and does the right thing, I still don't think he should be retained. He along with that jerk of a DA Mary Lacey should go practice law in another State.
April 17, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
GWM-
From my understanding, the evidence he dismissed was dismissed because it was anecdotal whereas the Mc's had actual physical evidence including photos, contracts, etc... all the Kirlins had were affidavits from people which are basically signed pieces of paper with people saying "nahh--uhhhh." When compared to photos, etc...this is very weak.
Again, if their photos and previous evidence proves to be fabricated, or there is considerable reason to suspect it was...then I'm sure the Judge will rehear the case. If not, he is sadly bound to the stupid law. AND, even if it's reppealed, he has to obey the law that was on the books at the time, so it won't do the Kirlin's much good.
April 17, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
JB, congrats. You demonstrate the same thought process the judge used. Most of us do not agree with you. I am done if you are, but if you come back, tells us what you mean by "..., contracts, etc...".
April 17, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
GWM-
All I'm saying is that physical evidence trumps circumstantial evidence...in every court room in America. Again, if I remember correctly, the Mc's also had reciepts and work orders from stuff they did/ had done on the property.
Let's put it this way. If 5 people say that they say Man X raped a woman, but the DNA from the attacker actually is Man Y's DNA...it doesn't matter how many people want to say it was Man X...he won't be convicted.
April 17, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
JB, how about this, two people are in a car accident and person x was at fault. Person y takes his car to the insurance company who take pictures and lists the damage. Five people who witnessed the accident say there was no damage to person y's car to the left door. Pictures however taken by the insurance company (three weeks later) show damage to the door. So are you saying that person y would win in a court of law because the picture shows damage even though 5 witnesses says there was no damage (NO PATH ON THE KIRLIN'S LAND UNTIL THEY TOOK THE PICTURE). Sorry my caps got stuck on.
It is obvious the picture the thieves provided showed a path. The 5 witnesses say there was none for most of those 18 years. The judge uses his discretion and protocol to choose not to use those eye witness accounts. Legal? Likely. Could it have gone the other way with a different judge OR even the same judge? Likely. THE PROTOCOL HE USED IN DISMISSING EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS WAS IMPROPER! He should not be retained even if he does the right thing.
April 17, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
Uhhmm JB - an affidavit is:
affidavit (aff-ih-day-vit) - noun
written declaration made under oath; a written statement sworn to be true before someone legally authorized to administer an oath
So a person can be held for perjury if they are not truthful, and can be fined or imprisoned for same - this sir (my assumption) IS NOT an "nahh--uhhhh." People have been sentenced to death by virtue of sworn statements given via affidavit, and they are not taken likely by any legal entity. Pictures, especially those without verifiable date stamps, are indeed the weaker form of evidence in a case such as this (according to an attorney friend).
April 17, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
pegasus99_aka_DR writes:
Should be "not taken lightly by"
April 17, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
We know what you meant pegasus. Good post.
April 17, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Peg-
Yes, an affidavit is a sworn oath...sort of. I didn't mean to mitigate their importance. However, when compared to physical evidence, that is also submitted under oath, they become more he said she said.
GWM-
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Also, a very similar situation to your car wreck example happened to a friend of mine... and YES, his insurance did end up having to pay for the "mystery damage."
April 17, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
JB, yes we will have to agree to disagree. The affidavits should have been accepted. AND it does not surprise me in your friend's case, the insurance company had to pay for the "false path". But right is right. Although right does not always wins, it does most of the time. If this judge is a good man, he will do the right thing.
April 17, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
"Adverse possession must be possession that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous occupancy of property.....
Well, well, well...there's an "and" in there. I'd say the requirements of the law as written, were not met.
But I guess that depends on your definition of the word "and".
April 17, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
http://www.legalview.com/Legal-Dictio...
April 17, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
jmadison,
thanks for the link. That is good news. (Too late for the Kirlin's though.)
April 17, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Here is how unfair this is. Let's play the color and professional card. What if this happened in a different neighborhood and the thieves were people of color who worked in blue collar jobs. Same outcome? I have an opinion. What's yours?
April 17, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Ricky, I think you are over the top a lot, but what a hoot!!
"I guess that depends on your definition of the word "and".
It should read:
I guess that depends on your definition of the word "and" is.
But we got your point. LOL.
April 17, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
I'm a theatre actor, what can I say?
April 17, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Proof required of adverse possessor. To prove adverse possession, the one claiming it must clearly show, not only that his possession was actual, adverse, hostile, and under claim of right, but that it has also been exclusive and uninterrupted for the statutory period. Segelke v. Atkins, 144 Colo. 558, 357 P.2d 636 (1960); Hayden v. Morrison, 152 Colo. 435, 382 P.2d 1003 (1963); Sanchez v. Taylor, 377 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1967); Dzuris v. Kucharik, 164 Colo. 278, 434 P.2d 414 (1967); Raftopoulos v. Monger, 656 P.2d 1308 (Colo. 1983); Matter of Estate of Qualteri, 757 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1988); Schutten v. Beck, 757 P.2d 1139 (Colo. App. 1988); Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Ritchey, 888 P.2d 298 (Colo. App. 1994); Goodwin v. Thieman, 74 P.3d 526 (Colo. App. 2003); Schuler v. Oldervik, 143 P.3d 1197 (Colo. App. 2006).
April 17, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Mere occupancy is not sufficient to put any of the true owners on notice that the adverse claimant claimed the land, and the burden of proof, as to open, notorious, and hostile claim, is upon the adverse claimant when it claims title by adverse possession without color of title, and every reasonable presumption is made in favor of the true owner as against adverse possession. Lovejoy v. Sch. Dist. No. 46, 129 Colo. 306, 269 P.2d 1067 (1954).
April 17, 2008
5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Trespassers do not acquire possession. Trespassers who go upon lands for a special purpose, hunting, fishing, camping, surveying, etc., do not thereby acquire possession. Concord Corp. v. Huff, 144 Colo. 72, 355 P.2d 73 (1960).
April 17, 2008
5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Placing improvements on property not disseisin. The placing of a few improvements or structures on the property is not a taking possession thereof or a disseisin. Concord Corp. v. Huff, 144 Colo. 72, 355 P.2d 73 (1960).
April 17, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Adverse possession found where plaintiffs' possession of property for 24 years was: (1) Hostile, because plaintiffs used the property as their own; (2) exclusive and actual, because they acted as an average landowner would in utilizing the property for its ordinary use; and (3) adverse, because their use of the property was sufficiently open and obvious to apprise the defendant that they intended to claim the property adversely. Schuler v. Oldervik, 143 P.3d 1197 (Colo. App. 2006).
April 17, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
To acquire a prescriptive easement, a party must confine his or her use to a single, definite, and certain path. Minor deviations do not defeat the claimed easement. Whether the route remained substantiall