Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obscure doctrine gives former judge part of Boulder neighbors' land

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NYVet Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 10:13 AM
Original message
Obscure doctrine gives former judge part of Boulder neighbors' land
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7508274


BOULDER, Colo.—More than 200 people protested outside the home of a couple who added more than 1,400 square feet of their neighbors' land to their own property using a centuries-old legal doctrine.
Some protesters carried signs Sunday outside the home of Richard McLean and Edith Stevens that read, "You'll never enjoy a stolen view." Others yelled "shame" and "thief."

At issue is a 55 foot by 80 foot lot Don and Susie Kirlin bought in 1984 for a future dream home with mountain views.

After the Kirlins tried to build a fence on the property line last year, McLean and Stevens sought a temporary restraining order, then sued the Kirlins under the principle of "adverse possession." That gives a person title to someone's land if that person has used the land for a certain amount of time with no challenge by the owner.

McLean, a former district court judge and former Boulder mayor, and Stevens said they had used the Kirlins' land to get to their patio for 25 years with no protest. The Kirlins said they didn't know their neighbors had been trespassing on their land.

A judge last month awarded McLean and Stevens about one-third of the Kirlins' lot. The Kirlins said they plan to appeal.

The case has drawn complaints from radio commenters, columnists and bloggers, who helped spread word of the rally. The Kirlins attended the protest but said they did not organize it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Pretty Shocking stuff...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNearMcChord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. If this stuff spreads, we will start seeing
the Wild Wild West again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. it sounds like a lousy decision but there's nothing at all obscure
about the legal doctrine of adverse possession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYVet Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I am willing to be that a majority of DUers have never heard of that term.
Unless they were lawyers or well studied in legal matters, it seems pretty obscure to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I meant it's not legally obscure
any first year law student knows the term. It is obscure to the public at large.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYVet Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. And that is the point of the article.
A couple of lawyers took advantage of a law that 90% of the populaion had never heard of before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. no. the article called it an obscure legal doctrine. It's not even
remotely obscure, and 90% of the population hasn't a clue as to most legal doctrines. Should they be jettisioned because of that ignorance? Adverse Possession is used not infrequently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. It's not so obscure.
It also applies to things like fences. Most property owners know this - if your neighbor builds a fence over your property line and you don't challenge it within a certain amount of time, they have legally moved the property line to their benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It's taught to every first-year law student
And most realtors are familiar with the concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. No, it's not that obscure.
It's a common question in real estate advice columns because boundary disputes are a frequent topic. It's also the reason why some people fence off or post "No Trespass" signs on vacant land.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. No, there really isn't.
In this case it might have been over-applied, if the judge was just walking across the land to get to his patio. This maybe should have been an easement by prescription- just give him the right he was using, not outright ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Exactly - walking on it could lead to prescriptive easement but not adverse possession

The owners have two defenses to the claim: the first being that "walking across the land" is insufficient to satisfy the element of "ownership" and the second that walking across the land is non-exclusive if the owners or others used the land for walking on as well.

Elements of Adverse Possession

Actual - You actually acted in the manner of an owner of the property.

Open & Notorious - You engage in acts of possession consistent with the property at issue in a manner which was capable of being seen. (This does not mean that you must have been observed in your acts of ownership but, had the actual owner or members of the public been in a position to see you, your acts must have been observeable). You need not use the property in a manner that exceeds that which would be expected of the actual owner - that is, it may be possible to claim adverse possession of a vacation property on the basis of use only during the vacation season, or to claim adverse possession of a vacant parcel of land by engaging in typical acts of maintenance for the parcel.

Exclusive - The adverse possessor does not occupy the land concurrent with the true owner or share possession in common with the public. One does not have to exclude others from the land in order to claim "exclusive" use, but during the statutory period the person claiming title by adverse possession must have been the only person to treat the land in the manner of an owner.

Hostile - Hostility exists where a person possesses the land of another intending to hold to a particular recognizable boundary regardless of the true boundary line. That is, possession is "hostile" to the title owner's interest in the property. If possession was not hostile, it may still be possible to advance a claim of ownership under a theory of "acquiescence". You cannot claim "adverse possession" if you are engaged in the permissive use of somebody else's land.

Under Cover of Claim or Right - Either when the person claiming the property makes the claim based upon constructive possession under color of title (e.g., there is an error in the legal description in their deed leading them to believe they own part of a neighboring property), or makes the claim based upon actual use and possession of the area of land at issue for the statutory period

Continuous & Uninterrupted - All elements of adverse possession must be met at all times through the statutory period in order for a claim to be successful. It may be possible to claim adverse possession even if there is a transfer of ownership through the principle of "tacking" - for example, a former owner's twelve years of adverse possession can be "tacked" to the present owner's eight years, for a cumulative twenty years of adverse possession.

The Statutory Period - The statutory period, or "statute of limitations", is the amount of time the claimant must hold the land in order to successfully claim "adverse possession".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. This can happen in Florida, BUT only if the person claiming land that belongs to
someone else by reason of adverse possession has ALSO been paying taxes on that land for seven consecutive years and can prove they have and that the owners of record made no protest.

I'd like to see the Colorado law which allowed this, seeing as they awarded the land to McLean without compensation to the Kirlins. It seems more than a little fishy to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think they have to pay for it.
They may be awarded ownership based on adverse possession (they proved they've been using it for years with no claims by the owner) but I think they have to pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
10. Normally a good law, but walking on land is 'use' for purpose of ownership?
Edited on Wed Nov-21-07 11:20 AM by mainegreen
That's not living on the land nor working it.
Hell, I've walked across the parking lot near my house for years and not once has the owner objected.
I guess it's my personal property now!!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Yeah, as was pointed out upthread,
it sounds more like a prescriptive easement rather than an adverse possession, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on DU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-21-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. Why be shocked?
The law has said that for centuries. If someone is trespassing on your land, don't let them do it for 20 years before going to the courts to complain about it.

Amazing anyone in modern times would tolerate it that long.

In the old days, it did a lot of good to clear up land titles.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC