How big is this playing in Colorado?

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author

User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 21098
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

#2 Post by SportsFan68 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:54 pm

Nothing here in Podunkville yet. unlike the horrific Supreme Court decision which robbed people of their homes to make way for Big $ Developers to become even Bigger $ Developers back East.

I know nothing about this other than the article that LiveFly pointed to, but I'm guessing that this is a case of no good deed going unpunished. The Kirlins probably thought that Stevens and McLean weren't doing any harm, why not let them use it without an easement until they were ready to build on it.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

#3 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:12 pm

"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.

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.

User avatar
silvercamaro
Dog's Best Friend
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

#4 Post by silvercamaro » Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:44 pm

I saw at least two news stories about this on local Denver news over the weekend. The couple claiming the land says that their "adverse possession" is based on their footpaths to their own back yard on the neighbors' lot. Several nearby neighbors testified in court that the footpaths did not appear until after the Kirlins, the lot owners, applied for a building permit in late 2006. For that reason, some people believe that the victorious couple -- a former district judge and Boulder mayor and his wife -- used political influence and friendship with the ruling judge to take possession of the land and prevent the Kirlins from building on their lot, which would mar the view from the existing, older house. The political couple also demanded that their legal fees be paid by the Kirlins. The ruling will be appealed.

IMO, the whole story -- and one of the couples -- is pretty damn creepy.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23175
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

#5 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:14 am

The concept of adverse possession essentially says that if someone is openly using land for a period of time (usually a considerable number of years) and the owner does nothing about it, then they can obtain title to it. It usually comes up in cases in which boundary lines are confused or mistakenly drawn as when someone builds a fence a few feet into the adjoining property.

It can legitimize squatter's rights, but the squatter bears the burden of showing that they have been in possession and using the land for the entire period of time. I'd say the evidence here is a bit murky at best. It seems the original owners got a raw deal and should appeal.

Post Reply