LandGrabber.org2012-05-19T14:27:14ZLandGrabber.orgCopyright 2012, LandGrabber.orgSPHPBLOGHeartfelt Thanks! The last couple of years have been quite a drain, both financially and emotionally, to say the least. It is a very bittersweet time that we end this lawsuit. We are really happy to not be involved in litigation and the legal expenses it incurs. But there is definitely a sense of loss and sadness that we cannot continue on with this battle, because people shouldn’t be rewarded for being trespassers aka “adverse possessors.”
It has been very heartwarming to receive all the words of support and encouragement along the way from the people of Boulder and beyond. Your willingness to step forward and voice your outrage is what got the laws of Adverse Possession changed in Colorado. For that, you should feel very proud. You have definitely helped people down the road from a similar fate.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry081119-1100222008-11-19T00:00:00Z2008-11-19T00:00:00ZThe Daily Camera Two Boulder neighbors have settled a land dispute that made national headlines and prompted state legislators to change the law that allowed it to happen.
Don and Susie Kirlin, who originally lost 34 percent of one of their two vacant lots to neighbors Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, agreed to cede about 12 percent of the million-dollar property instead, the couples announced Tuesday.
“This settlement allows the parties to put this long-standing and difficult dispute behind them,” they wrote in a 48-word joint statement.
Under the terms of the agreement, which still must be sent from the Colorado Court of Appeals to Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein for final approval, McLean and Stevens will own a five-foot strip of the Kirlins’ next-door lot, widening to nine feet at the north end of the property.
The total transaction equals 540 square feet of the 4,659-square-foot lot.
The settlement ends a high-profile case that divided the south Boulder neighborhood after Klein’s October 2007 decision to award the land to McLean, a former judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney. The couple sued for the Hardscrabble Drive property under the centuries-old law of adverse possession, which allows trespassers who openly use land for 18 years to claim it as their own.
The case, which the Kirlins had appealed, prompted public protests; death threats against McLean and Stevens; and an unsuccessful effort to fight Klein’s reinstatement in this month’s election. It spurred changes to Colorado’s adverse possession law, and spawned a new law prohibiting judges from hearing cases involving current or former judges from the same district.
Both couples called the settlement agreement a win-win situation: the Kirlins will be able to sell the property with enough land left to allow a house to be constructed on it, while McLean and Stevens will retain access to a path around the side of their house.
“I would have never done something like this to my neighbor, however I am happy that it’s finally over,” Don Kirlin said.
Stevens said the settlement ends a tense chapter in the neighborhood’s history.
“I think that the community will be relieved to see that the case is settled,” she said.
‘A fully buildable lot’
Although they’re still disappointed the lawsuit ever happened, the Kirlins said that having at least some of the valuable land back is satisfying.
“It’s cost me over $400,000” to fight the lawsuit, Don Kirlin said, “and after spending it, I only get to lose 12 percent of my property that I already owned.”
He said the property, with its expansive view of the Flatirons, is now for sale — listed at $925,000. A house with a footprint as large as 1,540 square feet could be built on it, he said.
“The end result is, and the most important part to me, is that it allows a fully buildable lot,” Don Kirlin said.
The investment, he said, was always meant to finance the couple’s “dream home,” which they still intend to build on their adjacent lot.
The terms of the settlement include provisions that allow construction crews to use the piece of the lot owned by McLean and Stevens for access to the site, but whoever buys the property must agree to restore the McLean-Stevens land to its original state after construction.
Don Kirlin said his neighbors approached him with the offer to settle the longtime dispute.
“I think their gut feeling was, and their legal counsel advised them, that there was a good chance they would lose in the court of appeals,” he said.
Kirlin said his neighbors stand to gain more from the deal than just land.
“Their friends abandoned them,” Don Kirlin said. “They want to try and attempt to regain some of their stature in the community.”
‘I don’t know why it took them so long’
McLean and Stevens said they had always hoped to settle the case, which was prompted by construction of a fence that cut off a path they had used unquestioned for 26 years.
They have said on several occasions that they tried to resolve the dispute without resorting to a lawsuit.
“You always are trying to settle the case without raising the level of antagonism, without incurring a lot of attorney’s fees, and we had hoped from the very start, before we filed the lawsuit, that we would be able to settle the case,” Stevens said.
The couple has long said their lawsuit was about preserving their right to use the land to access their own backyard, based on their two decades’ of previous use.
“I think from the very start, our goal was to retain access to the back of our property and to protect the trees and shrubs that we planted there,” Stevens said.
McLean echoed his wife, saying he wished the resolution could have come sooner.
“I’m quite satisfied with it, because we made the offer nearly a year ago,” he said. “I don’t know why it took them so long.”
Negotiations have been ongoing for more than a year, and the Kirlins said previous terms weren’t acceptable them.
‘Nobody had to lose this case’
In the year since the Boulder case gained national attention, Colorado lawmakers decided to revamp the law of adverse possession. As of July 1, the law gives judges the power to force adverse possessors to pay for the land they win, and to compensate the original owner for back property taxes and interest.
The case was unique for the way it affected the public, said Andy Low, attorney for the Kirlins.
“Out here in the West, people feel very strongly about property rights,” Low said. “It touched on a lot of people’s concerns about their own property.”
He said both couples were eventually able to rise above the “bitterness” that comes with lawsuits like this one, and reach a compromise.
“Ultimately, I think the headline for me is the case has a happy ending,” Low said. “Nobody had to lose this case, which is very unusual.”
Kimberly Hult, attorney for McLean and Stevens, agreed.
“This settlement should resolve the dispute in its entirety, including the appeal,” she said.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry081119-0956012008-11-19T00:00:00Z2008-11-19T00:00:00ZPerjury - Motion Filed Showing McLean/Stevens Fabricated Evidence The current motion asks the court to set aside its judgement and to return the land to the Kirlins
Click here for the Motion and Exhibit A as a PDF Click here to go directly to the photos Click here to see all of the exhibits ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry080215-1136412008-02-15T00:00:00Z2008-02-15T00:00:00ZEdie, Edie, Edie, Open Mouth Insert FootSometimes It Is Best To Say Nothing At All! ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071117-0817292007-11-17T00:00:00Z2007-11-17T00:00:00ZBoulder Should Learn From HawaiiThe Daily Camera Letter to the Editor Click Here ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071116-1505592007-11-16T00:00:00Z2007-11-16T00:00:00ZRocky Mountain NewsStory by Vince Carroll ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071116-0734322007-11-16T00:00:00Z2007-11-16T00:00:00ZThe Daily Camera Letter To The Editor Daily Camera Letter to the Editor Logic Doesn't Guide Critics
Don't forget to read the comments!]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071115-1511142007-11-15T00:00:00Z2007-11-15T00:00:00ZThe Daily CameraGo To The Daily Camera
Couple will appeal 'adverse possession' ruling Kirlins locked in legal battle after ex-judge claimed their land using 'adverse possession' By Heath Urie (Contact) Thursday, November 15, 2007
Don and Susie Kirlin stand on their property in Boulder's Shanahan Ridge subdivision in front of the home of their neighbors Richard McLean and Edith Stevens on Wednesday. A judge's recent decision gave ownership of a portion of the Kirlins' property to McLean and Stevens. 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 neighbor's landas 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.
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 applied for and 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.
A judge has ruled in favor of another judge – now retired – in an unusual "adverse possession" land dispute in pricey Boulder, Colo., giving the retired judge a large part of his neighbor's $1 million parcel of land for a pathway to his backyard.
Judge James Klein The recent ruling came from James Klein a judge in Colorado's 20th Judicial District covering Boulder, and was in favor of Richard McLean, who retired from the judiciary in Boulder several years ago. The loser in the case was Boulder resident Don Kirlin, who is publicizing his situation on the landgrabber.org website. He and his wife Susie owned the land in question for more than two decades, and he appeared recently on the radio talk show hosted by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman on Denver's KHOW radio. The result of the lawsuit was that Klein awarded to McLean ownership of 34 percent of a residential lot valued at an estimated $800,000-$1 million in a Boulder subdivision based on McLean's allegations he and family had, under the state's "adverse possession" law, used the property for their own uses in a "notorious" fashion and without permission of the owners for more than 18 years. Amy Waddle, a spokeswoman with Colorado's 20th Judicial District, said, "The judges don't comment on pending cases. I believe they are considering appeal." On the radio show Kirlin explained his shock when the land on which he's paid taxes of about $16,000 a year, plus $65 per month homeowner association dues, on which he's sprayed for weeds and repaired fences, suddenly was made unusable by Klein's decision. "This is a foundation … of our country," Kirlin, an airline pilot, said. "You should be able to buy property and own it." He said he and his wife purchased the property, which actually included two residential lots, in southwest Boulder at the foot of Colorado's Flatiron mountains, in the 1980s, but never developed it because of his busy career and raising of family. They lived in another home just a few hundred yards away, and besides paying the annual property taxes, attended the property with fence repairs and weed-spraying requirements, he said. He passed it regularly en route to his hikes into the mountains, and never saw any "encroachments," he said. The law under which Klein gave the property to McLean requires someone to "possess" property by using it, without permission of the owner, continuously for 18 years, and most commonly comes up when a building built before mapping technologies were accurate, extends onto another parcel of land. Kirlin said he discovered there was a problem when a neighbor told his wife at a high school football game McLean was planning a legal action to take some of the parcel, which is only about 60 feet by 80 feet. He said the family discussed the situation, but seeing no evidence that such a claim could be substantiated, decided to go ahead with a fencing project on the parcel. McLean, however, told the contractor when he arrived to stop the work on Kirlin's property, and within a little over two hours on a Friday evening had a court order to that effect, Kirlin said. During the trial McLean testified he had worn a path 20 feet onto Kirlin's land to obtain access to his backyard, but Kirlin, a former member of the homeowners' association board and the HOA manager testified that was incorrect. Klein then simply ruled in favor of McLean, which means 34 percent of the parcel, or about 1,500 square feet, is given to the retired judge, Kirlin said. He said he had approached the former judge when he confronted the fencing contractor and asked how the issue could be resolved. "His only response was, 'We're going to start an action,'" Kirlin said. The costs of the lost fight – so far – have surpassed $120,000, and Kirlin said he plans to appeal, but also was given more bad news in just the past few days. "We just got notified a couple days ago they want us to pay their court costs," he said. "Under a best case scenario, if we appeal, and we get back the land we already owned, it will cost us $200,000 and it will take us three years," he said. Caplis said he had known the two plaintiffs, McLean, and Edith Stevens, a former chairman of the Democratic Party in Boulder County, for years. "I can't understand why either of them would be willing to do something so wrong," he said. Kirlin said a number of issues were suspicious during the trial. "They said they've had these big political parties, engagement parties, delivery vehicles using my lot over the years, and yet, over 25 years they didn't have one picture of all of these activities," he said. "I don't care if you're ACLU or John Birch you shouldn't have your property taken by people who trespassed on it," Caplis said. Klein's opinion concluded that McLean had a "stronger" attachment to the land than the actual owners. Colorado state website notes that Klein got his law degree from the University of Denver and went into the state's employment as an assistant attorney general focusing on worker's compensation and unemployment issues. He then worked as an administrative law judge and then moved to the 20th Judicial District bench. McLean confirmed in court he knew the land belonged to someone else, but he used it anyway to reach his backyard and hold parties. McLean has declined media requests for comment and his attorney declined comment, confirming that an appeal is expected. An online forum on the issue allowed Boulder-area residents to express mostly one-sided opinions: "Welcome to the USSA," said Travis McGee. Added "freekitty," "This is so underhanded, they can't find a rock to get under." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58670
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071114-1511322007-11-14T00:00:00Z2007-11-14T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Letter to the Editor with comments Bob Greenlee's column on adverse possession (Nov. 4) was a welcome opening to the subject of adverse possession. Our family recently endured six years of legal agony and expense defending a beloved portion of our property in Boulder from an adverse-possession claim by our next-door neighbor, Marsha B. Yeager, an ultra-conservative judge. Ultimately, D. D. Mallard, the district court judge appointed by then-Gov. Bill Owens only six months before our trial, ruled against us. This happened in spite of the fact that our attorneys, expert witnesses and other advisers deemed our case to be solid and our chances of prevailing to be good. It's easy to speculate that, in another court, Ms. Yeager's suit would have been recognized for what it was. Whenever we tell our story, and we've told it many people, the universal responses are amazement and outrage: "What? But that's thievery!" Our experience and the experiences of others who have responded to Mr. Greenlee's column offer a shared perception of adverse possession as a legal maneuver for getting away with what would otherwise be white-collar crime. Until our state legislators have a chance to work on this legal quicksand for the unwary, we can always watch out for neighbors who are patient, crafty and territorial. Developing an obsession with the details of property ownership and with making sure your neighbor never gets the better of you is not a progressive attitude, but is one, apparently, that needs to be exercised in Boulder, as property values, population and population density continue to rise.
We must respect court rulings. I had the privilege of serving as a law clerk for Dick McLean and was continually impressed by the dignity with which he treated each of the litigants who came before him, regardless of their financial status or the crimes with which they may have been charged. He earned the respect of those who came before him not by being domineering or by judicial fiat but by his integrity, impartiality and considered judgment. He used these same skills to build consensus and create a more civil discourse among disparate interests when he was Boulder's mayor and when he served as a RTD representative. Dick is what is all too rare in our society; a leader by example, and without ego.
All that I know about the merits of the adverse-possession claim filed against the Kirlins is that McLean and Stevens successfully proved the elements of their claim. Unless you were present for the trial and heard all of the evidence, you cannot know any more. If you don't like the adverse-possession law, which is the law in all 50 states and is derived from English common law, seek a legislative change, but please don't make personal attacks upon people who assert their legal rights, especially when you only know a portion of the facts. It is especially disturbing that the ad hominem attacks against Dick McLean and, by extension, Judge Klein have occurred simultaneously with the expulsion of the Pakistani Supreme Court and the wholesale beatings and imprisonment of lawyers in Pakistan who are attempting to stand up for the rule of law. As a society, we must have respect for our laws, those who interpret them, and the rulings of our courts.
CONRAD LATTES Boulder
Posted by JQP on November 14, 2007
When one purchases a parcel of ground, the location of the parcel is defined by the “legal description” in the deed used to purchase the property. In subdivisions, the legal description typically refers to a Lot & Block of the plat used to subdivide the property. When a parcel of ground is subdivided, surveyors place markers at the corners of each lot, and regardless of how accurately the property is surveyed, there is always a discrepancy between the written description of the property, as shown in the deed, and the physical location of the property markers on the ground. The purpose of the law of adverse possession is to resolve these discrepancies, over time, in favor of the actual location on the ground. It is a very powerful law - little understood by the public and unfortunately by many inexperienced judges who rule on such matters. Laws are not exact and judges have wide discretion in interpreting laws and applying them to the facts at hand. A wise and just judiciary will apply laws in a fair and equitable manner. In the Stevens/McLean v Kirlin case, based in information provided in the media, it appears that District Court Judge James C. Klein, inexperienced in real property matters, awarded Edie Stevens and Richard McLean $300,000 worth of property simply because the Kirlins did not build a fence which would have prohibited Stevens and McLean from trespassing on the Kirlins' property. I was tempted to say “casually” trespassing, but it looks as if attorneys Richard McLean, and Edie Stevens, past chair of the Boulder Democratic Party, purposefully trespassed with the intent of using the law of adverse possession to get their hands on their neighbor’s property. I doubt Solomon, or any competent and experienced judge, would have decided the case in this manner. I also doubt most Boulder residents would have the gall and be mean-spirited enough to use such a device to screw their neighbors.
Posted by Canyonrunner on November 14, 2007
Isn't it interesting that in both the case mentioned by Bob Greenlee and the case mentioned here, the adverse possesion claims were made by former judges? Looks a lot like cronyism and back room deals to me. The intent of adverse possesion is to resolve boundary disputes, not to allow squatters.
Posted by Billprez on November 14, 2007
Yet another shyster scumbag lowlife associated with Mcclean/Stevens. Shame, shame, shame.
Posted by foreign_correspondent on November 14, 2007 an adverse-possession claim by our next-door neighbor, Marsha B. Yeager, an ultra-conservative judge. Ultimately, D. D. Mallard, the district court judge appointed by then-Gov. Bill Owens only six months before our trial, ruled against us.Given that Dick McLean and Edie Stevens are VERY active in local Democratic politics (to the point of attending the recent Clinton event) and that the very conservative Bob Greenlee blew the whistle on them, your point is what? The problem is a lack of personal ethics, not one of political affiliation.
Posted by boulder_native on November 14, 2007
Well, the Krueger-Cunningham story only proves that it does not matter what politics a lawyer espouses, THEY ARE ALL CROOKED SHEISSTER THIEVES. It was so cold this morning, I actually saw MacLean with his hands in his OWN pockets!!!
Posted by mondoboulder on November 14, 2007
"Welcome to the world of big government corruption. "In a world of smaller government, the citizens would have the resources and the time to really look at the local judges and see if she or he is fair." It's slightly more sad than humorous the way every event, large and small, must be forced to ride on certain people's hobby-horses here in Boulderia.This is not a matter of "big government." As foreign_correspondent points out, "The problem is a lack of personal ethics ..."
Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
Posted by cawrigh on November 14, 2007
"McLean and Stevens: If you have an ounce of decency, give back that land!" The Kirlin's received notice yesterday that Dick and Edie are demanding another 9 inches. Seems that the line that was drawn doesn't quite cover "edie's path" to the liking of McLean/Stevens.
Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
...though I'm looking at Google Earth and I don't see "edie's path".
Posted by meatpieandtatters on November 14, 2007
Criminal Justice at its finest. The lawyers and court rooms they infest are the perfect embodiment of how they dictate not what is moral or right, but argue in favor of whatever suits their own personal interests.
Posted by SoBoPop on November 14, 2007
Lawyers and politicians in bed together, there's something new and different. Conrad probably got his county job due to his association with Dick and Jane, I mean Edie. On a brighter note, the unity these folks have brought to these blogs in recent days is fantastic. Thanks Dick, Edie, Judge Klein, and Conrad. You actually have done something to benefit Boulder: FC, Mondo, BN, LE, Sillie and Grey all agree that you are shysters. Who says there is no common ground in politics anymore?
Posted by Dogu on November 14, 2007
I really would like Dick and Edie to give a statement on this. Just some explanation, say something please... But alas, the silence is oh so telling. I love that the public and media outlets are not letting this one "blow over"...
Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
"Why would they stoop to such tactics and the resulting public opprobrium just for a little material gain?" bad seed.
Posted by SoBoPop on November 14, 2007
Kiren said yesterday that his legal costs might top $200K if they decide to appeal. If they lose they would probably have to pay McClain/Srevens' cost as well. 1) adds insult to injury. 2) discourages the appeal. Stacked deck:(
Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
maybe Google Earth satellite photos say something differently than the sworn statements. so, this could get really fun.
Posted by cawrigh on November 14, 2007
CONRAD LATTES: "As a society, we must have respect for our laws, those who interpret them, and the rulings of our courts." Slavery was once perfectly legal. Should society have respect for our slavery laws then? Should people who legally bought and sold slaves have been lauded or tolerated for their legal behavior, or should they have been ridiculed and ostracized regardless of the law? McLean and Stevens are moral Pygmies. They admit to being trespassers and they're thieves. They deserve every bit of civil ridicule and ostracism society has given them. McLean and Stevens: If you have an ounce of decency, give back that land! Chuck Wright http://www.RonPaul2008.com/
Posted by trappist99 on November 14, 2007
CONRAD LATTES OK, McLean is a friend of yours so I guess you have similar views on the world and you wont have any idea what this is about, "the laws the law" and you control the law!! Lets try another way to help you understand. ................ Thou shalt not murder Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house ................. I guess you disagree with these. Lets try something else. The people who are complaining over this think you, McLean and Stevens are "not nice" people for screwing your neighbor, irrespective of the law.
Posted by blacksho89 on November 14, 2007
CONRAD LATTES: Should Martin Luther King, Jr. have respected the law? Should George Washington have respected the rulings of the courts? When the law oversteps what is morally and ethically right, it is our privilege-nay, our sworn duty-to disrespect the law and the law interpreters. Did "Judge" McLean consider the harm he is doing to: The Kirlins The neighborhood The legal profession and system, by using the LAW for his own personal greed and gain? He has proven that in Boulder, money and prestige talk while ethics walk. And you have proudly declared yourself to be part of the problem. Come back from the dark side, Conrad. It's not too late to fight for what is right.
Posted by sgk2054 on November 14, 2007
It is absolutely absurd that Conrad Lattes would compare the situation of lawyers in Pakistan to Dick McLean. In Pakistan they are fighting for common law to benefit the citizens of Pakistan, while Mr. McLean is using the letter of the law instead of the intent to steal from his neighbor. It doesn't matter what Mr. McLean did in the past, his last public act was to steal from his neighbor. This action wipes out whatever legacy Mr. McLean might have wanted to leave. He and Ms. Stevens are nothing more than a thieves. If "Dick is what is all too rare in our society" Then I say thank God for that. As a society we must identify laws that enable thieves like Mr McLean and Ms Stevens to benefit and close the loop holes.
Posted by marytkelly on November 14, 2007
Thanks to Conrad Lattes, those for the McLean's: 1 Opposed: Any rational intelligent person. Sorry Conrad, those who have commented before me do an excellent job of disintegrating your "argument". Dan Caplis and Silverman having been covering this story. Both are well seasoned attorneys, Caplis knows McLean and Stevens personally and had good impressions of them UNTIL THIS. Both Caplis and Silverman, who often have opposing views, are both horrified at the blatant evidence of cronyism and misuse of the adverse possession law and want the story of the greed and obvious silent planning for years on the part of Stevens/McLean to go national. Their coverage of this story continues today on KHOW 630AM. Their show runs from 3-6:00. Stay tuned. This is not going away, and it shouldn't.
Posted by cheesemonger on November 14, 2007
Conrad: "Dick is a leader.... without ego". Are you kidding me? What kind of massive head does it take to steal your neighbor's property? It's bad enough that they were trespassing, but it's obvious that they created this trespass with the intent to steal the Kirlin's land. How anyone can defend this is sickening.
Posted by driveby_poster on November 14, 2007 p.m.
"I love that the public and media outlets are not letting this one "blow over"..." That's because the media's mission is one of truth, justice and the American way, and not about ratings. Posted by cawrigh on November 14, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal) "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 5th Amendment United States Constitution.
In the Kelo decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the 5th amendment's "public use" can also mean "private use" so long as some public purpose (however vague) is stated. Consequently Kelo's land was transferred to another private owner. At least in the Kelo case, Kelo was compensated for the property that was taken from her.
In the McLean/Stevens decision, the district court went a step beyond Kelo and ruled that the government can take private property and give it to another private party without any compensation whatsoever for the original owner and force the original owner to pay the legal fees of the other private party. How does this not violate the US Constitution's 5th amendment's takings clause? Has anyone contact the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org/) who argued the case for Kelo, regarding McLean/Stevens?
Kirlin is going to appeal! A big take away from this is people like McLean/Stevens who by all accounts seem to be charming, nice and well liked, need to be judged by deed (no pun intended) not by their words.
Posted by SoBoPop on November 14, 2007
I agree that a protest on Hardscrabble is a good idea. However, people are so angry that the potential for property damage is high. maybe that would be the proverbial 'eye for an eye'(a discredited legal idea even older than adverse possession.) Current OOP $150,000, projected total $250,000 in legal costs, still have to pay taxes because requesting a stay, projected time to play out 4 years. Tax bill on the lot approximately $11,000 x 23 years.
Posted by silleekim on November 14, 2007
What if the Kirlins were to stop paying their property taxes? Would the county seize the property for non-payment? What would happen to the AP ruling in that case? Someone here has stated that the law doesn't apply to government property. Posted by cheesemonger on November 14, 2007
I can't belive how obsessed with this I have become- I've spread this story to anyone and everyone that will listen, and listen they do- intently- with mouths hanging open in shock as mine is. I'm just absolutely outraged that after all of this, McLean/Stevens want MORE. I just can't wrap my head around this kind of greed and meanness. Who ARE these people? Where is their moral compass? Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
The property is worth $9OO,OOO. So, nobody is going to allow the land fall by the wayside through a tax lien. The Kirlin's still own the property and will pay the taxes through the appeal.
Posted by albanal on November 14, 2007
But, gee, McLean/Stevens were actually rather generous. They didn't take all the Kirlins' land and force them to walk to South Dakota and live in semi-starvation.
Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
Dick and Edie could be in South Dakota by now.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 14, 2007
Banal is right. Usually white people take all your land. If not your life.
Posted by fbog on November 14, 2007
"The property is worth $9OO,OOO." For a 4700 sq ft lot?
Posted by greystonewest on November 14, 2007
Thats why Dick and Edie want it. The Kirlin's didn't pay anything near that 23 years ago. Dick and Edie could sell it in a couple of years and live the High life in Westcliffe!
Posted by BNB on November 14, 2007
What Judge McLean and his wife have done here is appalling, underhanded, greedy, self serving and totally ethically corrupt. However I don't feel as the Kruegers do that this is a republican/democratic, left/right, Boulder, Colorado or any other geographical area issue. This is about right and wrong, and this is just a couple of morally corrupt people that happen to live in Boulder. They are also lawyers which you would think would have precluded them from this type of behavior as they should behave themselves with a higher moral and ethical standard in society. Especially Mr. McClean - a former Judge. It sure makes me wonder about how some of his rulings may have been handed down seeing how he conducts himself in the community during his retirement. I'm sure they are real proud of themselves now that this out in the public eye. Who really cares at this point how those two feel - they brought it on themselves by being greedy and self serving. How about how they have now kept otherwise nice neighbors from building on their property which they've owned for 23 years - and they probably owned those parcels prior to the arrival of these two thieves. They have stolen 1/3 of that property and the judge that ruled in their favor is just as much to blame for even hearing this case. Now they have the gall to demand their legal fees be paid - this is truly unbelievable.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071114-1438432007-11-14T00:00:00Z2007-11-14T00:00:00ZKHOW Callers Weigh In on the Kirlin's Unbelievable Plight
TUESDAY 11-13-07 5:00 PM HOUR More calls on the plight of the Kirlins through this hour.
click to listen]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071113-1835262007-11-14T00:00:00Z2007-11-14T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Comments I will look into filing a complaint and I appreciate the info that Reality_check has provided. Dan Caplis and Silverman did a radio show on this yesterday on 630 AM at 5:05 for an hour. They couldn't believe this had happened. Don Kirlin as well as Bob Greenlee were on the show, and they plan on doing another show today. If anyone wants to listen to the podcast of this, go to: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1...
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370 returned my call. The complaint needs to filed by someone directly involved in the action. I hope the Kirlin's file a complaint with this office. I have not yet had a response from my email to our elected State Senators and Representatives that represent our area.
Posted by skirlin on November 13, 2007
dclaura13, Thanks for taking such a personal interest in this case and I have reported Edith Stevens to the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation. I have also made the call to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline for Dick McLean.
Reality_Check, Many thanks to you for enlightening us on the Misconduct Rule. I will do everything possible to expose these "shysters" for the disreputable, immoral people that they are. If anyone is interested in looking at this property from above, go to http://maps.google.com/maps?tab=wl, Once you are there, use "Map" to locate Hardscrabble on the southwest side of Boulder. At the west end of Hardscrabble, go to Maximum zoom, then select satellite. You will be able to view the lot at the end of Hardscrabble with the fire access road on the south side. McLean and Steven's property is just to the east. Scroll just to the south and you will be able to see a path that we use for hiking. Where is the path on the lot??
Posted by reid on November 13, 2007
What an amazing and disturbing story! This law, for the good of society going forward, needs to be altered to reflect 2007 standards of living. In order to change it we need to create mass awareness of this law across the country through the media -- if Mclean and Stevens get jacked the press in the process, oh well. Sounds like they deserve it. My specialty is national media relations and I would take this case on pro-bono. This has Larry King written all over it. Susie and Don, please post on this board a means for us to communicate, if you are interested.
Posted by jeffm on November 13, 2007
So the Steven's are eschewing the opportunity to present 'their side' in the Wednesday revelation of their perfidy before the entire state? Perhaps it's just the confidence and arrogance that they successfully used the law to murder justice and that's sufficient. That and the fact they really couldn't address the inevitable questions they'd be asked or present a cogent and common sense case to actual people. I mean BS-ing another lawyer and judge with the arcana of the law's letters in order to bury its spirit is 1 thing but this is another entirely. Maybe the furor to come will give them cause to seek a change of venue from the People's Republic of Boulder due to the adverse publicity. Except they'd probably fare even worse then they would here-the land will revert back to the Kirlin's and their only 'hope' in an open, monitored court would be not to be nailed with the Kirlin's court costs, too! ("Stealing a neighbor's property for free is 1 thing but paying to lose it back is another...") I'd suggest the People's Republic of China for a favorably hearing of their questionable application of law because I don't think it's going to fly too high in America.
Posted by silleekim on November 13, 2007
Re: Google maps. If you intend to use that source as evidence in a future appeal, I highly recommend that you store a screen shot. I'm not sure how often they update their satellite images, but if it happened and you didn't have that record you would have lost an important piece of evidence. Again, I'm not an attorney, but I'd suggest printing the screen shot in front of an unbiased witness, signing and dating the print out, and having the witness sign and date it as well. Also, determine and document if you can the date on which the satellite image was taken.
Posted by dclaura13 on November 13, 2007 skirlin I do not live in Boulder, but do live in Boulder County. I am a native Coloradoan. I don't personally know anyone involved; I'm just outraged and want to do anything I can to change the law and help you. I'm glad you filed the complaint. reid Thanks for the media help. I emailed Bob Greenlee's column to national and local TV stations last week and left messages as "news tips" etc. I'll keep checking here for updates.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 13, 2007
Posted by dclaura13 on November 13, 2007 Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370 returned my call. The complaint needs to filed by someone directly involved in the action. That's complete bullshit, utterly false information from whomever returned your call. Demand a written complaint package be sent to you. ANY citizen has legal standing, a right, and indeed a moral obligation to report Attorney Misconduct / Unethical Conduct. Who, exactly, gave you that false information? What was their name? Please post their name so they can be disciplined/fired for asserting such falsehoods in an attempt to discourage citizen participation in the Attorney complaint process.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071113-1308012007-11-13T00:00:00Z2007-11-13T00:00:00ZKHOW Radio's Caplis and Silverman Show: BOULDER PROPERTY OWNERS' LAND GIVEN TO FORMER BOULDER JUDGE
MONDAY 11-12-07 5:00 PM HOUR GUESTS THIS HOUR: Don Kirlin, Boulder property owner; Bob Greenlee, Boulder Daily Camera columnist. A Boulder couple hopes to appeal a ruling that gives a sizeable portion of land they own to a former judge who lives next door. We got the story from that land owner and a Boulder Daily Camera columnist who wrote about the issue.
click here to listen ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071112-2023392007-11-13T00:00:00Z2007-11-13T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Comments I am outraged about this law and the behavior of the judges and Stevens. Thank you for the Complaint line phone number. I have called and left my phone number for a return call. The next phone calls and correspondence will be to our lawmakers. This is absurd.
Posted by stopTheNonsense on November 12, 2007
I wonder if I can use this law to make the Flatirons all mine, at least anything off the trail because that's where I've been going for nearly 30 years.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 12, 2007 Nope. The Gov't is immune from Adverse Possesssion actions. Big surprise, eh?
Posted by Lupulin on November 12, 2007
This story is unbelievable and it sickens me. It's got greed and good ol' boy corruption all over it. Personally, I don't see how situations like this are any different than pure anarchy. This is a complete and total injustice. Beyond the unrightfully "acquisition," my veins are pumping with anger at how an ex-judge could do such a low, evil and tactful thing. Not to mention, how a current judge would sign off on such a nefarious thing as this FAVOR for his old colleague. I'm losing faith in judges and the judicial system. I guess I expect more from them, like morals, knowing the difference between RIGHT and WRONG, and treating others (i.e., your fricken NEIGHBOR!) with a little more respect and decency. All landowners reading this should be furious. I know I am. I can't even type or put all my thoughts together. I gotta go have a beer now so that I don't type something stupid.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071112-1305132007-11-12T00:00:00Z2007-11-12T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Comments Posted by mondoboulder on November 11, 2007
This whole thing is outrageous, but also fascinating. It's breathtaking how ignorant so many people are about their own legal system. None of this stuff, "taking legal action" (whatever that means), changing the law, "filing a complaint," etc., etc., is going anywhere at all. And if any of you are so ill-advised as to translate your bluff and bluster into action, you will find out about things like criminal mischief, harassment, vandalism, and myriad other charges that are very expensive to defend against. Consider the sad case of our own former city attorney and chill out.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007 Posted by mondoboulder
It's breathtaking how ignorant so many people > are about their own legal system. None of this stuff, "taking legal action" (whatever that means), changing the law, "filing a complaint," etc., etc., is going anywhere at all.LOL! ... if you say so, mondo. Are you French? LOL!
Posted by CAR on November 11, 2007
Cavedaveeee, you have to pay taxes for land on which you're squatting in Cali -- so it's not exactly a "squatter's paradise", even though it only takes 5 years of possession. Paying taxes on a neighbor's property makes the move more deceitful, but also more "open/notorious". Maybe CO's legislators should consider such an addition.
Posted by JBJ on November 11, 2007
Cjb: “Perhaps I am most disappointed in Judge Klein.” I am with you here; I’ve been trying to find out what discretion the judge had in his ruling. I wonder why the aerial photos on the Fox news report aren’t mentioned in the court documents. Mondoboulder: “It's breathtaking how ignorant so many people are about their own legal system. None of this stuff, "taking legal action" (whatever that means), changing the law, "filing a complaint," etc., etc., is going anywhere at all.” I shouldn’t have been, but I was totally ignorant of this Adverse Theft law. To busy raising a family, working within my profession and dealing with everyday life. I don’t make enough money to have a legal staff constantly analyzing my vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t count on the legal system to interpret each unique situation without bias. My neighbors and I back up to a large portion of private undeveloped land This land owner lets us access our property across his land and has for the last 15 years. I am going to tell him about this case. I don’t think any of my neighbors are of the Steven/McLean camp, but shining light on the risk is the least a good neighbor can do.
Posted by JBJ on November 11, 2007
Mondoboulder this is going somewhere, it's raising awareness.
Posted by silleekim on November 11, 2007
Mondo has an excellent point. If you are stooping to the level of the lynch mob, then you are no better than the thieves. Consider this: One poster threatens to kick their teeth in, another posts their address, phone, and email, a third posts their photos. This may border on harassment and conspiracy.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007
Posted by tao400 on November 11, 2007 marytkelly- are you going to file a complaint? It only takes one. the quantity does not matter. Not entirely true. While all the complaints arising from the same event will be consolidated into one case, the number of complainants does carry some weight, and different complainants may cite or point out different violations of the Code of Ethics, varying constructions to prior case law and disciplinary rulings. The bottom line is that someone's argument and rationale may be more concise and persuasive than another's. *Anyone* has standing to file a Grievance against an attorney (judge), and in fact complaints about ethical violations originating from people other than the Kirlins themselves wouldn't hurt the cause. And to the rest of those in the Boulder community who are outraged by this abusive, willful and deliberate thievery by professional lawyers manipulating arcane laws to their own personal financial benefit, consider a community wide SHUNNING of McLean/Stevens. SHUNNING in its true and complete form as practiced successfully throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning Those of you who own businesses or other services, or have friends who do, can exercise the right to refuse service to anyone. Those of you who belong to organizations or groups can avoid McLean/Stevens in your activities. Neighbors can cross and walk on the other side of the street when they see them approaching. A complete and total ostracism by the community and the individuals in it who are offended and find this unethical behavior to be utterly unacceptable would send a lasting message, a strong messages that unfortunately in this day and age are never sent to miscreants and lowlifes who live amongst us. Just because it was Legal doesn't mean it was Ethical -- or Moral.
Posted by JBJ on November 11, 2007
“This may border on harassment and conspiracy.” Let’s see, the Stevens/McLean's Cross a border for over 18 years and are rewarded in a court of law. The public gets wind of it and express their outrage on a public forum. Team “how dare they say that about -or- to us” takes legal action and acquires all registration information from the Daily Camera. Then traces them down threw there ip addresses and sues each and every one for 34% of their net worth…. Sounds about right…. Mondoboudler has made a good point.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007
COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PREAMBLE: A LAWYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES [1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. [5] A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. [6] As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. [7] Many of a lawyer’s professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. However, a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation of professional peers. A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession’s ideals of public service. [12] The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. [13] Lawyers play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship to our legal system. The Rules of Professional Conduct, when properly applied, serve to define that relationship. [19] Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007
RULE 8.4. MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; (h) engage in any conduct that directly, intentionally, and wrongfully harms others and that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007
(c) engage in conduct involving DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT or MISREPRESENTATION; There's the key to the Grievance action against attorneys McLean & Stevens. Point of Fact: McLean/Stevens painted themselves into the proverbial corner on this one, being that in order to prosecute and prevail in their Adverse Possession action against the Kirlins, McLean/Stevens had to confess and stipulate to those elements -- dishonesty, fraud, deceit -- in order to meet the requirements of Adverse Possession. - McLean/Stevens KNEW the property wasn't theirs. - McLean/Stevens willfully trespassed on said property for years, knowing those actions would eventually cause severe financial harm to their neighbors. - McLean/Stevens KNEW the rightful owners lived next door and took no effort to directly contact them about their actions and intent. - McLean/Stevens KNEW that their continued trespass of their neighbor's property would eventually result in conversion of said property to the financial harm and detriment of their neighbors, and to their own selfish benefit. - McLean/Stevens acknowledged it was their INTENT to "hostilely occupy and take" the Kirlin's property as their own, without permission, without compensation, and against the will of the Kirlins - McLean/Stevens KNEW that if they disclosed their habitual trespass, and/or their intent to "hostilely occupy and take the property" directly to the Kirlins at any time prior to 18 years it would have extinguished the claim. <note: had the Kirlins *given permission* to McLean/Stevens, that too would have nullified the claim> - McLean/Stevens hid their intent to convert <steal> the property from the Kirlins in order to profit personally. i.e. "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation", ipso facto. QED HTH
Posted by ahma221 on November 11, 2007
The use of this arcane law for personal gain by anybody, particularly by a judge and a lawyer is a prime example of the Greek tragedy: GREED. And I thought they both cared about the rights of their neighbors while they represent their voices on community boards such as PLAN BOULDER and fill leadership roles in their political affiliations. If this isn't hypocrisy, what is?
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071111-1303152007-11-11T00:00:00Z2007-11-11T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Comments after Heath Urie's Article on Land-Grab Law Not So Obscure If there were justice, Stevens and McLean would be facing criminal trespassing charges. It makes my blood boil that there is no justice in this matter. If Stevens and McLean had an ounce of decency, he would back down.
"The doctrine, incorporated into Colorado's Revised Statutes"
The doctrine needs to be repealed by the Colorado legislature. No one should be rewarded for trespassing.
"'Adverse possession has been around a long time, and it's not a theory of law that is questioned,' Toft said."
How long this injustice has been around is not relevant to whether it is moral and serves justice.
The law of adverse possession is based on the notion that a property owner SHOULD bring trespassing charges against those unlawfully on their land. If the land owner fails to do so - because he or she leaves the land unattended, unprotected, and unused - those who actually use that scarce resource for productive purposes may claim a right to it. The law is meant to ENCOURAGE protection of property and also productive use of land. It's not about being "rewarded for trespassing," although it may seem like it in some cases.
Posted by aprilsmile on November 10, 2007
the owners said they did not even know that trespassing was happening. It has to be open and notorious. I think the homeowners have to know it is going on. What I want to know is what kind of people would take land from other people in a situation like this, especially when it is such a small lot? I hope there is such negativity that the boulder population runs them right out town
Posted by kl53c on November 10, 2007
"It's not about being "rewarded for trespassing", although it may seem so in some cases." It is not that it seems so in some cases: IT IS SO in all cases. This law should be stricken from the books, this is not the wild west frontier anymore. This law should never have applied to city lots in the first place. SHAME ON THAT EX JUDGE, no morals at all.
Posted by evanesce on November 10, 2007
Mclean is a former judge, and he exploited an archaic law for the purpose of stealing someone else's land. Whether or not this law supports his case does not change the fact that his action is despicable. I hope that his neighbors shun him for his behavior, and I really hope that the property owners win their appeal. Mclean should be ashamed of himself.
Posted by cawrigh on November 10, 2007
"The law is meant to ENCOURAGE protection of property and also productive use of land."
I understand the purpose of the law. I don't agree with it. The government should protect the property rights of the owners regardless instead of trampling their rights, and the owners should be allowed to decide whether to put the land into productive use, when to put it into productive use, and what constitutes productive use.
Mclean/Stevens don't want someone blocking their view (or their path heh-heh). Why don't they do the right thing and offer to buy the lot? Do they want people to think of them as thieves?
Posted by boulderhippie on November 10, 2007
we have a farmers ditch that crosses our property, making a small corner of our property difficult to access. We heard a story that a few owners before us, a group of condo owners who's property is adjacent to us tried to claim that piece of property as theirs, because they used it more than the owners. The judge denied the claim, but made the owners install a bridge to access the land.
Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007
Yep if you enter 2059 Hardscrabble Dr 80305 into Google Earth it's pretty obvious it's just some rich folks trying to protect their view.
Posted by boulderhippie on November 10, 2007
chuck - what does ron paul have to do with this?
Posted by blacksho89 on November 10, 2007
McLean: "I don't want this case tried in the media." How about the Court of Public Opinion, then? "The Court find you and your Jezebel guilty of being scumbags. Of this decision, there is no appeal. This session is adjourned."
Posted by KR on November 10, 2007
Stevens and McLean are thieving rats. They have stolen more than $300,000 worth of property, and then have the nerve to demand that their victims pay their legal fees? Shame on them. If they choose to act so selfishly and un-neighborly, the rest of should band together to treat them as they see fit to treat others.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007
As others have said, just because it was Legal doesn't mean it was Ethical. Therefore the Kirlins -- or ANY interested parties -- can and perhaps should file a Grievance with the Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee regarding Dick McLean's unethical behavior. There have been 100s of attorneys suspended or disbarred for unethical acts which themselves were perfectly legal. The Colorado Bar even denied one lawyer membership for simply "using" the law to expose and stop a corrupt evangelical preacher. The gist of the ruling was that since he knew the law so well, using every bit of it to attack a lay person for purely personal reasons, even though legal, was unconscionable and unethical. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370. You can read up on the Rules of Professional Conduct and actual disciplinary actions and the reasons therefore, at http://www.cobar.org/ors.cfm?ID=20041 Any act which tends to place the Profession in a bad public light is a violation, whether legal or not. Deliberately exploiting the arcane Adverse Possession law to one's personal advantage against a known neighbor in a modern residential development is, at a minimum, abusive. "... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession." -- Chief Justice Warren Burger
Posted by SoBoPop on November 10, 2007
The law was meant to work in a world of farmers and ranchers and probably worked well 150 years ago. Aren't judges supposed to consider the intent of the law? And the intent of the scoundrels attemping to use it in an unethical manner? Disbarring both of them as well as Ms. Hult sounds like a reasonable solution. Maybe folks should pitch some tents in the McClain Stevens' back yard and have a big party while they're on their next Carribean vacation. Then we could file suit and give the Kirin’s back their land as well as 50% of the judges property. Fair is fair, right?
Posted by michelleinboulder on November 10, 2007
Edie Stevens and Dick McLean are disgusting and clearly plotted for years to take their neighbors land. They were spoiled by the fact that the lot next to them remained empty for so long. And instead of counting their blessings ("hey, someone could've built a house next to us 20 years ago but instead we've had open space!") they go greedy and decide not only that they're *entitled* to have open space next to their house *permanently*, but that but that they should be awarded ownership of that space. They ought to be ashamed, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that they are.
Posted by jadam12 on November 10, 2007
"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.” Wow, it doesn't pay to be neighborly. Now you neighbors can just take your land. I hope that McLean and Steven's greed will come back to haunt them. Why didn't they just use the trail as they always did? Is their house so huge that they couldn't have created access on the other side of the property? Why are these wealthy people (McLean and Stevens) being so petty? I guess they will have to live with their decision and will be viewed so with the community, unless they are the type who never leave the confines of their gated community.
Posted by Reality Check on November 10, 2007
Interesting note that the arcane Adverse Possession law does NOT apply to quasi-municipal or municipal corps. So while lowly private citizens are in danger of losing their property to trespassers, the City (or State) cannot lose their property under the same rules/law, no matter how many decades the 80-yr-old lady has lived in the cabin that she and her late husband built by hand upon Forest land in the 1930's ...And while Colorado's "Make My Day" law currently only applies inside one's home, it's an interesting note that some other may states allow deadly force to be used to defend person or *property* even outside the home ... so given that trespassers put one's property at risk, it's no wonder that in other venues -- "Trespassers WILL be SHOT ... survivors will be shot AGAIN!" Perhaps there is merit to the old adage -- Good Fences Make Good Neighbors. And if your neighbor is named McLean, make that an electrified razor-wire fence.
Posted by cjb on November 10, 2007
Perhaps I am most disappointed in Judge Klein. He ignored not only the intent of the law, but also important facts in his decision allowing the former judge to complete his unjust land grab. I am the Kirlin's neighbor and thought this case was a no brainier. If the intent of the law is to put the land to the best use during the supposed adverse-possession period, what better use of the land than preserving open space!! I knew the land belonged to the Kirlins--Susie told me three years ago. I was shocked and disappointed when I saw the fence go up because it detracts from the beauty of the property. The public should know that our homeowners association walks the entire neighborhood on a regular basis and there was no obvious encroachment until after the dispute arose. I see the Kirlins walk the trails virtually every day, which go right by the property. Obviously, the Kirlins regularly visited their property, which is just down the street from their home. Who wouldn't? I also walk by the property all the time and I never observed any evidence that the property was being used until I saw the fence, let alone any "open and notorious" use adverse to that of the Kirlins. Moreover, everyone on the HOA board knew the Kirlins owned the land and were paying their HOA dues every month for more than two decades on the property--how then could adverse possession have been open and notorious? McLean and Stevens never paid dues on this land. Is everyone on our HOA board a bunch of blind idiots? The real injustice (besides the whole land thing) is the cost, pain, and suffering of this ridiculous lawsuit. I bet the Kirlins (who are very nice people) would be more than happy to donate the cost of the appeal to the Nature Conservancy if McLean/Stevens dropped the whole matter. In fact, the Kirlins previously offered to accommodate the former judge's "needs" but the former judge rejected those reasonable accommodations. Oh, and by the way, most of the lots in our HOA are small by design.
Posted by michelleinboulder on November 10, 2007
"Dick!! Dick!! Have you heard?!? The owner's of the lot next door are planning on building a home! A HOME!! In OUR neighborhood! Can you imagine?!? What will become of my path? How will I ever access the backyard now?!? Am I supposed to use the backdoor, like a common housewife?! Do they expect me to to walk around the RIGHT side of the house instead?! Do you have any idea how many STEPS out of my way that would be?!?!""And what in heaven's name do they expect us to do with all that wood?!!?"
Posted by eadavis79 on November 10, 2007
cjb - Thanks for your thoughtful post. May you and your neighbors stand up for the Kirlin's at their appeal. This is a nutty story. Gives lawyers a bad name.
Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007
cjb: are you and the other neighbors going to ostracize mcclean and stephens. I hope so.
Posted by malohovno on November 10, 2007
i can't imagine anyone wanting to be seen with stevens/mclean. "hey, democrats lets have a fund raiser and it's going too be at stevens/mclean house." of course o.j. simpson still has friends and plays in charity golf tournaments. so maybe stevens/mclean won't have a problem
Posted by EasyRider on November 10, 2007 Main Entry: shy•ster Pronunciation: \ˈshīs-tər\ Function: noun Etymology: probably from German Scheisser, literally, defecator Date: 1844 A person who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics.
Posted by dc on November 10, 2007
We rightly expect that professionals not just uphold the law, but to live their lives fully aware of the greater realm of ethics. Using a legal provision to plot, document, and then adversely take (what most of us might consider, to steal) property from your neighbor is not neighborly, not ethical, and not what one expects of a judge. Shame indeed!
Posted by fbog on November 10, 2007
What's really disturbing is that someone so unethical and willing to twist the law for their own purposes was a sitting judge.
i hope they go through with the appeal. where can i buy my ticket for front row seat. how many news people will be there. after all you can't make this stuff up.
Posted by MicMacGirl on November 10, 2007
Maybe the ex judge and the judge that heard the case are good ol' friends. Why was this case even tried in Boulder County? Isn't there a conflict of interest?
Posted by fbog on November 10, 2007
Does anybody know when corrupt Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein comes up for voter approval?
Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007
Don't forget that Kimberly Hult works for Boulder law firm, Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC (http://www.hbcboulder.com/attorneys.php?...). Not much ethics in the bunch either...it's all about the money. But at least you know who to turn to if you want to screw somebody.
yeah the snapshot doesn't come up right away. Go to that page, then click on Board of Trustees on the left side, then scroll down to the Dick McLean district O. Picture and bio there.
Posted by SoBoPop on November 10, 2007
address is 2059 Hardscrabble according to the RTD website.
Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007
Richard McLean Address: 2059 Hardscrabble Dr. Boulder, CO 80303 Home Phone: 303.494.3324 Fax: 303.494.6973 E-Mail: richardmclean2@attbi.com
Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007
it's actually board of directors on the left side, not board of trustees. Now, does anyone have a picture of his wife.
The Kirlin's are absolutely wasting their time trying to appeal their adverse decision. I have read the actual decision in that case, and the evidence the plaintiffs brought forward is relatively unassailable. My family has spent the last 6 years trying to defend our property from an adverse possession claim brought against us by another retired judge, Marsha B. Yeager. In our case, the evidence Yeager brought for her case was almost negligible compared to McLean's, yet the judge (D.D. Mallard) found for them and not us. We appealed and the Appeal Court's rejection of our appeal was cursory and unhelpful in terms of explanation. We appealed further to the State Supreme Court because we thought that the adverse possession law had been too loosely construed on behalf of the claimant. That too was rejected. So we lost several tens of thousands of dollars in court costs and approximately 100 sq. ft. of our property, including a lovely stone wall that had been within the deeded and staked boundary of our property since sometime in the 1930's. To add insult to this injury, Yeager applied to the court for unlimited access to our property to make any future repairs to the wall that she had acquired. Fortunately, the judge denied that. We would like to think tat the decision in our case was due to the fact that Mallard apparently had little prior experience in civil law when she was assigned to our case, and that the (in our view) poor judgment rendered did not set any precedents for other people so afflicted. However, since the appeals court found no problem with the ruling, one can't be too sure. What did we learn from this waste of time and money? Regard all your neighbors with suspicion (especially if they are lawyers), and don't hesitate to prosecute trespass.
Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007
"The Kirlin's are absolutely wasting their time trying to appeal their adverse decision." Wrong. Absolute falsehood.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
"Wrong. Absolute falsehood." Appeals courts don't generally admit new evidence or review the facts of the original case. The appeals court rules on the validity of the legal decision, mostly if errors were committed in the original trial.
Appeals courts don't generally admit new... Don't ever.
Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007
In case the Kirlin’s lose the appeal, they should sell the remaining lot to Karen Bernardi. The infamous realtor decided to sell her lot on Senda Rocosa instead of build the massive hulk that caused all the controversy. So she needs someplace for a McMansion. A perfect neighbor for Dick and Edith!
Posted by jim on November 10, 2007
How quickly can we get this absurd law removed from the books before it's abused again? I'm writing my rep now.
Posted by Ponderosa on November 10, 2007
This willful reprehensible behavior by Dick McLean and Edie Stevens, past chair of the Boulder Democratic Party, just goes to show how phony and hypocritical Democrats can be.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007 How insightful!
Posted by cavedaveeee on November 10, 2007
In California it only takes 5 years to get adverse possession - making CA a squatter’s paradise.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
I'm immensely cheered to find so many people, some of whom might actually live in Boulderia, of such uncompromisingly high ethical standards, at least where other people's ethics are concerned.
Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007
now we only need a picture of the wife. anyone got one. as to the appeal courts, the appeals courts do review facts of the case if it is an abuse of direction. that is a high standard but if the judge was totally wrong on the facts, they will overturn on those grounds. for instance, if a satellite photo from 2003 showed no path and no wood pile, as the Kirlin’s say, that is proof that may show an abuse of discretion. they also overturn on error of law, which might have also happened. it is definitely worth the appeal.
Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007
Edie is not terribly photogenic.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
"it is definitely worth the appeal." Perhaps all the rabid posters who are determined to do something should send the Kirlins at least a couple of hundred bucks.
Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007
For sure. A fund is being organized.
Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007
keep us informed. I will throw in a hundred dollars
Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007
The fact is that McLean didn't have to sue for *ownership* of the land in dispute, he could have sued for an Easement or for a Life Estate (fortunately he doesn't have much left) over the section in question. Which would have been more aligned with his claimed purpose of access (which everyone knows is a LIE) That McLean & Stevens chose to sue for the maximum personal financial benefit to themselves is a voluntary personal choice that reflects strongly on the character (or lack thereof) of Dick McLean. If everyone who has claimed outrage over this incident were to file an ethical grievance with the Supreme Court disciplinary Committee (and everyone has standing to do so, not just the Kirlins), then ole tricky Dicky could spend his final days fighting disbarment and humiliation, much like what happened to F Lee Bailey. The Kirlins must consult with an expert Land Use attorney regarding the merits of any appeal -- NOT their current attorney who lost the case. One thing they might consider is donating what's left of the lot as a Conservation Easement, or to the City for a Park or Open Space. They might be able to benefit from certain charitable tax deductions based on the value of the land, additionally they could assign the rights to the open appellate legal case to the new, deep pockets owners. Perhaps the new owners being the City/State/Feds could then exercise their superhuman powers of persuasion in the appeal, or perhaps wield the neutron-bomb of "eminent domain" against the Dick and Edie's "sendero luminoso".
Posted by susan on November 10, 2007
Mr. McLean, I had the utmost respect for you when you were on the bench. How can you pull such a slimy trick like this to your neighbors? I am in disbelief that someone I thought so much of, has let me down so much. SHAME ON YOU! I hope YOU have to pay all of the legal fees for the disgraceful actions and disruptions you and your equally slimy friend have caused. Where did the Honorable Judge go? Off to start stealing, it seems. When you were on the bench, you would have thrown yourself in the pokey!
Posted by trappist99 on November 10, 2007
"what's left of the lot as a Conservation Easement, or to the City for a Park or Open Space" No good, the OSMP are Edie's FOBOS lapdogs, then she gets everything.
Posted by Bluesky on November 10, 2007
Clearly, a former judge received special treatment on this one. What a load of crap this is. It sounds more like McLean should be tried for trespassing and destruction of private property. These kinds of people make me sick. I hope the appeal is successful for the Kirlins. I bet McLean didn't think this would make it to the paper. Now, his name is McMud.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007
Susan -McLean didn't deserve any respect even when he occupied the bench as a Judge. He was known as an incompetent bungling jurist amongst the legal community. In fact his tenure on the bench in Boulder is the WORST record of any judge in modern history. McLean had made more reversible errors, been overturned on appeal for legal mistakes more times than numerous other Boulder judges combined. He was so pathetic and incompetent that in one case he was actually overturned TWICE, once on direct appeal, and then again when he screwed up the remanded case that was sent back to him -- WITH INSTRUCTIONS. This final incident of deliberate premeditated thievery is truly the crowning achievement in the final chapter in Dick McLean's life of mediocrity and incompetence.
Posted by BoulderBorn on November 10, 2007
What revolting conduct, Mr. McLean and Ms. Stevens. It's sharp practice.
Posted by KR on November 10, 2007
Some states have nullified this absurd law -- Alaska, for example. See this: http://www.akrepublicans.org/wagoner/23/... We need to do something similar in Colorado. (We should also get a bill passed that would eject McLean and Stevens from the state.)
Posted by sahd on November 10, 2007
I say its high-time we got some activist judges involved who can rule on this case based on their moral principles rather than precedent and established interpretation of existing law. I can't stand these strict constructionist judges who are slaves to the original intent of these laws. Can't they see that they no longer have reasonable meaning in modern context? It's an outrage, I say, an outrage.
Posted by Pooks on November 10, 2007
So sahd, do you think the claim was legitimate, or are you simply being a smart ass and trying to turn this into a political issue?
Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007
sahd -LOL! Good one ... though without the sarcasm icon turned on, it may be lost on some.
Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007
boy o boy. This is not political. This is straight up favoritism buy a judge for a judge.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007
Billprez -Come on, don't be shy, tell us how you really feel ...
Posted by susan on November 10, 2007
Pooks----Is this the first time you've read a newspaper? Do you have an iota of an idea of what is going on? I think not. Find out, and then voice an opinion. Scheesh! It is a political issue and it is an outrage!!!
Posted by flintonx2 on November 10, 2007
Reading all of this makes me wonder about questionable unethical relationships among Boulder judges, current and former. Something really smells.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
Wow! People of unimpeachable ethical standards are coming out of the woodwork!
Posted by trappist99 on November 10, 2007
NO monoboulder, this is not about "unimpeachable ethical standards", this is about screwing a neighbor. Its done, but there is no way it's considered acceptable in a normal society.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
Well, keep that thought. People get screwed in court every day Monday through Friday.
Posted by jrmanville on November 10, 2007
Dick and Edie, I hope you know that you'll never live this down. You're going to be the deserved recipients of stink eye for the remainder of your days in Boulder. Is it really worth it?
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
Get real. The fools just reelected Matt Appelbaum, didn't they? Memories are short.
Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007
Greenlee: "Trespassers have rights" Extending that legal theory to the Immigration Debate -- perhaps the millions of undocumented aliens who've been trespassing for years in the USA could bring action and sue for "Adverse Residency" or "Adverse Citizenship", being they've embraced the "American Dream" more so than many native born citizens. Just a thought.
Posted by jgarcia on November 10, 2007
Stevens and McLean are just a pair of vulgar thieves. If I pay my taxes, my HOA fees, am I suppose to go there all the time and police my land. The base of our economic system is investments. You buy an asset to secure your future and you count on the law to protect you. It is already hard enough to deal with the thieves that Bankrupt companies as you buy mutual funds shares every two weeks, like a total idiot, for your 401K retirement. Now you have to deal with the dreg of society going after your rightful property. No honor, no decency. I hope the appeals turns this down. For God's sake, go all the way to the supreme court if you must. The interpretation of the law is ludicrous. I am not a lawyer or a judge, and for that matter even not anything about this law, but I reckon any reasonable individual will use this law if you knew that it was the case that someone took over your property, and you did nothing.
Posted by flintonx2 on November 10, 2007
OMG! My nice neighbor has been walking his dog daily through my property and the undeveloped lot next to mine. I walk my doggies on the same undeveloped lot. Now I need to worry! Maybe I should try to do a land grab before my neighbor does.
Posted by m.heather on November 10, 2007
Although I think McLean and Stevens are wrong in this case (if they knew it wasn't their land then they shouldn't be surprised when the owners want it back), the adverse possession law is an important one. My grandparents needed to sue in a similar instance over a driveway they had shared with their next-door neighbors for fifty years. When my grandmother tried to sell the house, the neighbors said new residents couldn't use their half of the driveway and would have to dig out their yard to make their half wider. It was a ridiculous argument between an old, dementia-ridden man and my recently widowed grandmother. My grandmother settled the dispute out of court to spare the neighbor's wife (horrified about the whole thing but unwilling to contradict her husband) the trauma of a court battle.
Perhaps a positive step that could be taken is for those who have access to quality aerial photography to come forward. I realize that some has been made available but perhaps a volume of quality evidence has been overlooked by lack of awareness of its existence. Whatever the outcome of the appeal it would be almost certainly be useful to have strong evidence for this case or a future case against the ethically corrupt judge(s) if McLean and Stevens are clearly distorting the evidence for their own pathetic greed. The Kirlins have my sympathy, whatever the law the judgment smacks of "land for the boys"
Posted by the_daily_tracks_what_you_read on November 10, 2007
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3] As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
"Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies" Does it count if the poster misspells both Gestapo and the name of the alleged victims?
Posted by marytkelly on November 10, 2007
It was said once, but it needs to be said again. Not only did Stevens and McLean get 34% of the Kirlin's land, they are requesting the judge make a decision that orders the KIRLINS TO PAY THEIR LEGAL FEES! So, let me get this straight. They just got over $300,000.00 worth of FREE property, but they want the Kirlins, who they clearly and blatantly stole the land from, to pay their legal fees. I'm not religious but the term lowlife scumbag shysters is way too nice. I would encourage everyone to write to get this story publicized nationally. Many states still have this outdated law. As for McLean, Stevens, and Klein, it could not be more evident that the good ole boys club is alive and well. Legal action should be taken against all three.
Posted by marytkelly on November 10, 2007
I want to second Reality_Check's (who's been writing some kick-ass comments) great advice that we all look into filing a grievance: "Therefore the Kirlins -- or ANY interested parties -- can and perhaps should file a Grievance with the Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee regarding Dick McLean's unethical behavior. There have been 100s of attorneys suspended or disbarred for unethical acts which themselves were perfectly legal. The Colorado Bar even denied one lawyer membership for simply "using" the law to expose and stop a corrupt evangelical preacher. The gist of the ruling was that since he knew the law so well, using every bit of it to attack a lay person for purely personal reasons, even though legal, was unconscionable and unethical. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370 You can read up on the Rules of Professional Conduct and actual disciplinary actions and the reasons therefore, at http://www.cobar.org/ors.cfm?ID=20041 I am. I'm naive enough to believe that there are times when the voices of many can actually silence the few.
Posted by meatpieandtatters on November 10, 2007
I'd kick the lawyer and the land-stealing scumbags right between the teeth. ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071110-2317302007-11-11T00:00:00Z2007-11-11T00:00:00ZThe Daily Camera - Attorney: Land-grab law not so obscure By Heath Urie (Contact) 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. 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.
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.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071110-0818042007-11-10T00:00:00Z2007-11-10T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Letter to Editor My reading of the letters from Jay Perry, George Stringe, and the Kirlins in the Open Forum on Nov. 8 regarding the adverse-possession issue of the Kirlin property is enlightening in that it illustrates issues beyond the scope of this unfortunate situation. And while I rarely find myself in agreement with Bob Greenlee, he was right to bring this to our attention. 1. Here is another example of a law that is being twisted beyond the intent (the Espinoza campaign-contribution issue of late comes to mind). 2. The unfortunate lack of personal integrity and concern for others that exists in our current civil climate that would condone this exercise is disheartening. 3. The use of obscure legal knowledge by an ex-judge to take advantage of a neighbor is disappointing and further increases the lack of trust in our government and its officials. This issue is a classic example of how difficult it can be as a parent to teach your children honesty and integrity when they see both flouted by persons who should know better. While I would agree this is not simply a Boulder problem, I would also agree that one needs to question what kind of person would do this to a neighbor. I can safely add that I would not allow my child to play with the McLean and Stevens children for fear of what they may "learn" relating to interactions with others. Oh, and if I could vote against "retired Judge" McLean, I would do so, but I guess I will reserve that opportunity for Judge Klein whose judgment is also in question here.
ALBERT PETERSEN Boulder ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071110-0814182007-11-10T00:00:00Z2007-11-10T00:00:00ZDaily Camera November 9, 2007 Letters to the Editor with Comments I would like to thank the Camera for having the courage to print Bob Greenlee's column about Judge Dick McLean and Edith Stevens' successful appropriation of the adjacent land using the principles of adverse possession. They somehow convinced Judge James C. Klein that Don and Suzie Kirlin had abandoned their property. Last year the Kirlins paid more than $20,000 in property tax on a property the county values at $950,000. The area is beautiful and since the lots are small, the temptation to expand is understandable. I hope the Camera does a follow-up story to help inform readers how they can protect themselves from rapacious neighbors. Perhaps the two judges could get together and do a "how to" article for the real-estate section or an infomercial for late-night TV; "how to increase your lot size without having to spend a dime." They should share their secrets with the city and county so we could expand our open-space holdings on a shoestring. But wait, maybe that's where they learned it. I love this town.
GREGORY PAVLICH Boulder
Comments:
Posted by lafayetteeast on November 9, 2007
Greg: I've always thought you should run for public office instead of grubbing around in the industry. That you're on the right side of this issue makes me more certain that you should. Maybe we should spend a little time spearheading some legislation that would tighten these adverse possession "laws," but I also think that the Kirlins should appeal. It isn't enough to simply use the Kirlin's experience as a lesson. This needs to be fixed, and you've got the voice, rep and stature. Think about it.
Posted by aprilsmile on November 9, 2007
Can anyone suggest recourse for the Kirlins after their property was stolen?
Posted by sierra5701 on November 9, 2007
Posted by aprilsmile on November 9, 2007 Can anyone suggest recourse for the Kirlins after their property was stolen?
I think the Kirlins and their attorney may have blundered by not raising the "permissive use" defense - if it were true.
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071109-0849122007-11-09T00:00:00Z2007-11-09T00:00:00ZDaily Camera Letters to the EditorWhile I always enjoy Bob Greenlee's weekly curmudgeon report, it seems he went a bit far in his recent attack on adverse possession (Nov. 4). While he tries to fit his dislike of the doctrine into his overall dislike of the "progressive" community of Boulder, he should know that adverse possession has nothing to do with the particulars of this community.
Adverse possession is a common-law legal doctrine that has been around since the founding of this country and is statutorily defined here in Colorado. That is to say the Kirlins would have lost their land after 25 years anywhere in the state, not just here in Boulder. In fact, I suggest that Mr. Greenlee not move out of state, for most states require less time in order to gain title through adverse possession.
It seems hard to feel sorry for the Kirlins, who had 23 years with which to stop the other couple from using their property. Instead, it seems that they were engaged in long-term land speculation. As land is a limited resource, the concept of adverse possession arose to encourage people to use their lands, not just wait for it to appreciate. You can argue with this premise, but the implication made by Greenlee that adverse possession is something unique to Boulder is just intellectually dishonest.
JAY PERRY Boulder
Property rights, Boulder logic doesn't add up. Boy, you just gotta love the Boulder logic. A property owner doesn't know where his own property line is, doesn't do the due diligence to find his property line, doesn't fess up to his own mistake in using property that is not his and then uses the law to take the property that isn't his! (Greenlee's column, Nov. 4.) Whoa, by that logic, if I get my pocket picked, I guess it would be my fault for carrying a wallet. Is that the kind of thinking that earned Boulder the #1 smart rating? You just have to ask one simple question here. What kind of person would do that to a neighbor?
GEORGE STRINGE Boulder
A little more background on the column by Bob Greenlee of Nov. 4 might be helpful. We have owned this property for 23 years, during which we lived in our home two blocks away, and have walked by our property at least once a week, all of those years. These people were not "open and notorious" at all. One of the HOA board members and a 20-plus year resident just a few doors down from the property, along with our HOA management company, testified that there were no signs that anyone was using our property! One of plaintiffs' own witnesses even testified that our lot looked like a vacant lot as if no one was doing much with it. That's because we kept it in a natural state, so that it looked like the adjacent city open space.
A year ago, we decided to construct a fence, in accordance with our HOA guidelines, as we had been warned by another neighbor that former judge Richard McLean and Edie Stevens, another lawyer, were planning to file this "adverse possession" claim (a land-grabbing technique). It was shortly after that time that paths started to appear on our property. McLean and Stevens were unable to provide any photographs of any paths existing prior to one year ago, even though they claimed these paths were obvious for more than 18 years.
Prior to trial, we tried to accommodate their requests for access to the rear of their house from the western side (though they already had access). We offered to build steps, and were even willing to offer them a small portion of our land to facilitate their needs. They declined all of this. Their objective appeared to be to take away a large portion (34 percent) of our lot, so as to render it un-build able, unusable and worthless on the open market, which is what they accomplished with Judge Klein's assistance.
Since 1984, we have paid taxes, homeowners' dues, complied with our HOA requests for fence maintenance, and city of Boulder requests for weed control. We walked by at least once a week and never saw any indication that the neighbors were using it, much less making a hostile claim to our property. How would you feel, if under these circumstances, someone took your property?
Is it right, moral or ethical that a Boulder judge award a former Boulder judge our property, when in fact they had no photographs or proof of the alleged paths for the past 18 years? In Judge Klein's order, he states "Plaintiffs' attachment to the land is stronger than the true owners' attachment." Oh really? We don't think so!
DON and SUSIE KIRLIN
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071108-2244232007-11-09T00:00:00Z2007-11-09T00:00:00ZTHE DEFINITION OF ADVERSE POSSESSION Now the way I was raised, with good old American morals and values, we call this STEALING!
]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071105-1006272007-11-05T00:00:00Z2007-11-05T00:00:00ZTrespassers have rightsMost of us would like to believe that when we own property and pay taxes on it, a reasonable assumption is that no one else can claim it as theirs. Unless you live in a "progressive" community like Boulder, where common sense is occasionally as rare as a conservative's view of private property rights.
Twenty-three years ago, Don and Susie Kirlin purchased two undeveloped lots in Boulder's Shanahan Ridge. They were considering whether to build a home on their property or sell one or both lots sometime later. Last month a portion of their property was taken away by District Court Judge James C. Klein and given to neighbors under the legal doctrine called "adverse possession." If you've never heard this term before, it's likely you're not a clever lawyer who knows how to manipulate "the law" for personal gain at someone else's expense.
The home adjacent to the Kirlin's is owned by Edith Stevens and Richard McLean. They apparently planted so extensively on their property that easy access to their back deck and yard was difficult. Somehow the two decided they would use their neighbors' property and created what they and Judge Klein call "Edie's Path." In addition to "Edie's Path" Richard apparently created his own access across his neighbor's property — also without permission. "Dick's Path" allowed him to move a lawnmower from his garage to the back yard. Court testimony indicates McLean and Stevens also held a number of summer events on their neighbors' property and moved a wood pile on it.
McLean testified that: "No one interfered with (their) use of the disputed property" and goes on to say that neither he nor Stevens asked for permission to use the property and that they both knew the property was some else's. In addition they admit using the property "openly, continuously and notoriously for 25 years." They simply admit to trespassing on property that wasn't theirs and on which they had no legal right to claim as theirs. Seems pretty clear-cut. Unless, of course, you know the legal tricks of claiming "adverse possession." Stevens and McLean are both lawyers, and McLean is a former judge and once served as Boulder's elected representative on the Regional Transportation District's board of directors.
According to court documents, the concept of adverse possession "is a method of acquiring title to an interest in land without the consent and typically over the objection of the true owner." Interesting concept. But if you ever find yourself in a court of law, you'll soon discover that up can suddenly become down, black becomes white, and common sense disappears as quickly as walking through a metal detector on the way to never-never-land.
The case clearly established that Stevens and McLean trespassed on their neighbor's property over a long-enough period and were therefore legally entitled to a portion of it. Free. Without paying rent or taxes. What a deal!
According to the judge, an initial presumption of ownership is in favor of the "record title holder." Just to sway things against rightful property owners, however, court documents indicate that after a period of time, anyone can claim land as theirs simply by forming "a personal attachment that is stronger that the true owner's attachment." Really? In addition, when another person's use of a property goes unchallenged over a long period of time, the "use it or lose it" doctrine prevails. According to Judge Klein's final order, title must now be transferred from the lawful taxpaying owners to their trespassing neighbors because of their "strong attachment" to it. If any of this makes a lot of sense to you, it's obvious you're far more "progressive" than I'll ever hope to be. Bob Greenlee can be reached at: robertdgreenlee@aol.com.
This is the story about how a former district court judge, and former mayor of Boulder used the law "adverse possession" to steal their neighbors property. If you watch the video from Fox 31 News and read the articles posted in the Daily Camera with special attention to the blogs below the articles, I think you will be amazed at how outraged people are to find out how easy this was. ALL homeowners need to be aware of this law.
Susie Kirlin]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071104-0914262007-11-04T00:00:00Z2007-11-04T00:00:00ZBoulder Land Grab 2007 ]]>http://www.landgrabber.org/index.php?entry=entry071103-0947152007-11-03T00:00:00Z2007-11-03T00:00:00Z
]]>