You may remember the story of a couple (the Kirlins) who bought a vacant lot in Boulder 25 years ago, and finally decided that they were ready to develop it. To their shock, the couple in the neighboring house (McLean & Stevens) sued them for partial ownership of the lot, based on “adverse possession.” Basically they argued that since they had trespassed on the lot for 25 years, and had “improved” it by creating a dirt path to aid in their trespass, they had establish a squatter’s right of possession.
Richard McLean was a District Judge and a mayor of Boulder, and his wife was an attorney and the head of the Boulder Democratic Party. Very well connected, very familiar with the law, and apparently devoid of any ethics or morals.
The plaintiffs won, outraging most people across the country and many even in Boulder. So the Kirlins went back to court and tried to show that the dirt path had been created after the lawsuit was filed. They used aerial photographs and expert witnesses to demonstrate that the path didn’t exist before 2007, but the judge, who has appeared to be awfully responsive to the nasty neighbors, claimed that he could see a path where the experts couldn’t.
So they lost their appeal yesterday, which really ticks me off. But not as much as hearing McLean say why he stole a third of their land:
“We want to use the property just like we’ve been using it for almost a quarter of a century.”
McLean said he and his wife will continue to fight for that use.
What a crock. “We want to steal $340,000 from somebody else because we like having a vacant lot next door.” How utterly selfish and self-indulgent. Rather than appreciating the free use of the lot for all these years, McLean and his wife have decided that they deserve that free use.
I hope the Kirlins keep the legal battle going, though I know it’s cost them an absurd amount of money already. Their next stop is the Colorado Court of Appeals. Perhaps by getting away from Boulder, the heart of McLean’s and Stevens’ influence, they’ll have better luck.
May 6, 2008 at 8:36 am
We had a case like that on our lake. Some folks across the street from some folks that were on the lake were allowed to use their dock for 15 years. Eventually they wanted to build their own path, and dock and they won the right through the “adverse possession” law. They put in one of the hugest docks on the lake right next to the homeowners dock.
When our next-door neighbor (who doesn’t own lake front property) wanted to make a path from their yard to the lake cutting across our property, and using our lake shore to build a dock, (for them to use), my husband said no, even though it would have been our dock, and they were going to build it for us for free.
My husband said “no thanks.”
May 7, 2008 at 7:28 am
If you really want to be outraged, read some of the stories on the official “RS 2477″ web page. This is another law that is heavily abused by people for the purpose of stealing private property.
May 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm
In my property law class in law school, the students were uniformly shocked when we learned about adverse possession. The professor was shocked that we were shocked. He said hey, what’s the big deal? If you own land you should check it every few years to make sure no one else is using it.
Nevada has a pretty good addition to adverse possession law: you have to pay the taxes on the property for the full period of the adverse possession, which your typical squatter is not going to do. I don’t know if Colorado has a comparable rule.
May 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I don’t know if Colorado has a comparable rule.
No – the Kirlins paid taxes and did weed control for the duration of their ownership. Probably the only reason they were able to keep any of it.
If you own land you should check it every few years to make sure no one else is using it.
In this case, I’m sure they didn’t think anybody was using it – it’s not like they camped out on it.
May 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I don’t mean to sound sympathetic to McLean, here. Just echoing the professor’s defense of the adverse possession rule.
It’s very odd. The best way to stop someone from adversely possessing your property if you aren’t using it is to give them revocable permission to use it. That way the possession is not “adverse,” and the time limit never starts to run.
And pardon the pedantry (uh, not that I think geoff will mind), but NiceDeb, what you described sounds more like a prescriptive easement than adverse possession. They are similar but not identical. And depending on the jurisdiction, you might be able to avoid prescriptive easement through permission. But you’d have to check with a lawyer who knows local law.
May 9, 2008 at 9:50 am
What possible good purpose does this law address? How is it anything other than “cheat and steal long enough and the law is on your side”?
May 9, 2008 at 10:13 am
The idea is that you want to encourage certainty of ownership and finality. Uh, that’s the theory, anyway. It’s harder to sell property if there might be some 200-year-old claim against it.
Of course adverse possession law doesn’t necessarily solve that problem. A title searcher can’t just check the title; he has to see whether there are any potential adverse possession claims before issuing title insurance.
May 15, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I guess I will start looking into using someone else’s land and see what I can “steal”. I am sorry that the Kirlins have to go through this but grateful for the information.
I will learn from their misfortune and not let anyone use any land I may have. Glad I sold my land long ago, I might have lost it anyway.