evil_gop_liars Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Owners who planned to build a retirement home on the land lose part of it under a little-known legal loophole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 That is crap. Stuff like that really pisses me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Owners who planned to build a retirement home on the land lose part of it under a little-known legal loophole. While this does, in fact, suck... just a clarification: they were not going to build a retirement home. They were going to build a single family home... to retire in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I'd be standing on the edge of my land that he took away holding a shotgun and have this look on my face . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 That's a democrat for ya! Who is really surprised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) Adverse possession is not a legal loophole. It is well established in I believe just about every state. However, it seems misapplied here as the alleged possession was not exclusive of the owners ... I imagine this gets overturned ... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...311&invol=1 Edited November 19, 2007 by Beaumont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Attorney: Land-grab law not so obscure Appeal likely in 'adverse possession' case in Boulder By Heath Urie Saturday, November 10, 2007 Camera columnist Bob Greenlee shocked some of those who read his commentary this week, when he described a Boulder couple's lawsuit that concluded last month with a judge awarding them control of a portion of their neighbor's property because they proved to have a "stronger" attachment to the land than the true owners. STORY TOOLS * E-mail story * Comments * iPod friendly * Printer friendly related linksMore Boulder & County News * Hard feelings on Hardscrabble Drive * Playing war, not just games * Publishing paradise: Boulder a base for outdoor magazines Share and Enjoy Share and Enjoy [?] Share your video, photos and news tips. But a Denver attorney who specializes in land and development cases said the legal concept of "adverse possession" that was used to win the suit is far more common than most people realize. In his Sunday column, Greenlee wrote that 23 years ago Don and Susie Kirlin purchased two undeveloped lots in Boulder's Shanahan Ridge, located in the 2000 block of Hardscrabble Drive. They were considering whether to build a home on their property or sell one or both lots. According to court records, the Kirlins left the property vacant and unattended while the homeowners next to the lot, Edith Stevens and Richard McLean, created two dirt paths through the property to access their own backyard "virtually every day" for almost 25 years. Stevens and McLean said in court that they knew the land was owned by someone else, but they used it anyway for access to their yard, to host parties and to store a wood pile. After a dispute erupted among the neighbors over a fencing issue, McLean, a former judge, hired Boulder attorney Kimberly Hult to sue the Kirlins for ownership of their longtime pathway by taking advantage of adverse possession. The doctrine, incorporated into Colorado's Revised Statutes, essentially states that if a person occupies the land owned by another person for long enough, without being challenged or given permission by the owner, the land becomes the property of the person most attached to its use. In Colorado, the statutory time a property must be occupied before asserting adverse possession is 18 years, and even then, squatters have a heavy burden to prove that they meet all the requirements of the law. In the case of McLean and Stevens, Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein found the couple had taken possession of their neighbor's land in an "actual, adverse, hostile, under right of claim, exclusive and uninterrupted" manner — consistent with the language of the law. Proving 'adverse possession:' Property must show visible signs of being occupied by non-owners. Occupiers must act as if the property was their own. The possession must be hostile to the actual owners of the land. Occupation of the land must be continuous and without challenge or permission from the lawful owner for 18 years. Source: Colorado Revised Statutes and court records Klein signed an order Oct. 17 demanding that the Kirlins sign over the title to the 12-foot-by-3-foot, semi-circular trail — or about 34 percent of their lot — to McLean and Stevens. McLean said he didn't want to "try the case in the media" and referred all questions to the couple's attorney, Hult, who also said she would not comment on the specifics of the case because she expects the Kirlins to file an appeal. An attorney for the Kirlins confirmed an appeal likely would be filed but declined to comment further about the case. The Kirlins argued in court that they have been proper stewards of their land, paying property taxes and homeowners' association fees since first purchasing it. They said they never noticed someone was encroaching on the lot. Hult said McLean and Stevens have faced a barrage of "negative" letters and other reactions from Boulder residents since details of the case became public, including dozens of critical comments posted on the Camera's Web site, www.dailycamera.com. Denver business and commercial law attorney Andrew M. Toft said Friday that homeowners should take notice of the case because use of the statute comes up regularly in property disputes. "Adverse possession has been around a long time, and it's not a theory of law that is questioned," Toft said. "If I have a fence that goes 2 feet onto my neighbor's lot line, and it stays there for 17 years ... at the end of those 17 years, conceivably I could go to court and (argue), ‘Your honor, I own this land now.'" He noted that the Kirlins would have been within their rights to call authorities about any trespassing on their property, but because they did nothing, the adverse-possession clause prevails. Toft said he sees the law used more frequently in rural areas, where boundary disputes span dozens or even hundreds of acres. However, he warned that some property owners can be caught off-guard by the particulars of the law. "Suddenly, it can become an issue," Toft said. "I don't think it's something that your average layperson is going to have a lot of experience with." The judge in the case wrote in his final order that the adverse-possession doctrine has existed since at least the 16th century. E.W. Scripps Co. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think this is rotten also, but how big of a house can you build on a 4700 sq ft lot??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think this is rotten also, but how big of a house can you build on a 4700 sq ft lot??? That's like a freakin' mansion lot in California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I know Boulder... and if this doesn't get overturned, there will be some old hairy women holding a vigil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Holy crap, if making a trail through someone's unoccupied land is good enough to take it over, I own a whole freaking subdivision worth of land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I'd build the house anyway and mess with the McLean's for the rest of their lives...only thing worse than neighbors-from-hell is a spouse-from-hell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Adverse possession is not a legal loophole. It is well established in I believe just about every state. +1 I've litigated 5 or 6 adverse possession or aquiescence (where the argument is that the title holder essentially let someone use his/her/its land) over the last 5 years. These doctrines have been found in the common law forever. Typically, someone builds something on property that they thought was theirs, only to find through a survey that the land belonged to their neighbor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Hult said McLean and Stevens have faced a barrage of "negative" letters and other reactions from Boulder residents since details of the case became public Awwwwww, those poor poor people... all they are trying to do is take something that belongs to someone else. Can't we please just leave them alone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFFL Chump Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Holy crap, if making a trail through someone's unoccupied land is good enough to take it over, I own a whole freaking subdivision worth of land. Maybe, but you have to do it continually and uncontested for 18 years..... in Colorado Edited November 20, 2007 by RFFL Chump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 That's a democrat for ya! Who is really surprised? Sounds more like a Republican land grad to me...... Man there would be trashy trailers, Bikers, empty beer bottles, and RAP music blasting all the time. I would make there life a living hell.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Sounds more like a Republican land grad to me......Man there would be trashy trailers, Bikers, empty beer bottles, and RAP music blasting all the time. I would make there life a living hell.... Nope... apparently they are pretty heavy into Dem politics. Edith Stevens is on the payroll for one of the Democrat House Representatives, Claire Levy. House District 13 Claire Levy (incumbent) Website: http://www.clairelevy.org/ Email: claire@clairelevy.org Edith Stevens, Treasurer 2059 Hardscrabble Drive Boulder, CO 80305 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 You'd be hard pressed to find any real republicans who live in Boulder. No, for some reason this eminent domain and land grab stuff seems to be Democrats recently. Except for that whole "don't mess with Texas" thread here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Sounds more like a Republican land grad to me......Man there would be trashy trailers, Bikers, empty beer bottles, and RAP music blasting all the time. I would make there life a living hell.... +1. I'd build anyway and make their lives hell. Or just set fire to their house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) or rather than complaining it is a repub or demo....if you don't like the law...change it! This happened in my VERY CONSERVATIVE town in Illinois. There was a very wealthy local couple that preyed upon an out of town land owner by mowing a section of the land every week. Seems the owner hired a lawncare service to come out every three weeks to mow. They obviously aren't surveyors...so they didn't know where the property lines where. The local couple got like half the lot for free after so many years. Turns out the couple who bought the land were going to build a house for their daughter...who was in 2nd grade...for a future college graduation gift. This whole land grab crap is just Athenayy Edited November 21, 2007 by TheShiznit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.