U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 11-22-2007, 10:34 AM
8,320 posts, read 23,205,600 times
Reputation: 8920


Originally Posted by COflower View Post
You do realize that in 2007 we have this thing called the assessor's office. We also have the ability to use global positioning to make it even more accurate.
I am quite familiar with both, and also with Colorado property law, property assessment, land title, and surveying. Not my first rodeo with any of them.
Quick reply to this message

Old 11-22-2007, 11:17 AM
Location: Colorado Springs
1,312 posts, read 6,297,593 times
Reputation: 690
jazzlover - perhaps you are well versed with real estate laws. That, however, doesn't apply to all landowners. One should not have to be a real estate attorney in order to know of such obscure and outdated laws.

Do other laws on our books since Colorado was founded make it right or apply in 2007? No.

Take the Blue Laws for example. In a 24/7 world, does keeping a car dealership closed on Sundays make sense? No. What purpose does keeping a car dealer closed serve? Apparently it served some purpose at some point but in a secular society it really is bogus.

Just because a law had some purpose doesn't make it right or just 400 years later. Landowners should not have to fence up their property and install "No Trespassing" signs around it so a landowner can maintain property rights.

Good neighbors, which the McLeans aren't, will respect a property that is not owned by them. Good neighbors in a polite society don't take the law and bully others in the manner the McLeans did. I treat any property not owned by me (like a park) with respect and any decent human will do the same thing to a neighbor's property.

Just because "you can" doesn't mean you "should".
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2007, 03:04 PM
8,320 posts, read 23,205,600 times
Reputation: 8920
Originally Posted by COflower View Post
Take the Blue Laws for example. In a 24/7 world, does keeping a car dealership closed on Sundays make sense? No. What purpose does keeping a car dealer closed serve? Apparently it served some purpose at some point but in a secular society it really is bogus.
Funny you should mention the "Blue Law" on car dealerships being closed on Sunday. I asked a good friend of mine who is a new car dealer what he thought of that law. He loves it. Why? Because it gives him and his staff a legislated day off. He explained to me that if the law weren't in place (and it is not in many states), he would, because of competitive pressures, be forced to open on Sunday. He, and many other dealers, are of the opinion that, if all the dealerhips in the state must close on Sunday, they will sell as many cars in six days as they will in seven. That is why the law is still on the books. Whenever a legislator brings forth legislation to scrap Sunday closings, the car dealers oppose it. Not editorializing whether it's good or bad, but that is why that law is still on the books. It ain't "archaic" to the car dealers . . .
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2007, 03:47 PM
19,001 posts, read 34,330,485 times
Reputation: 15528
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Funny you should mention the "Blue Law" on car dealerships being closed on Sunday. I asked a good friend of mine who is a new car dealer what he thought of that law. He loves it. Why? Because it gives him and his staff a legislated day off. . . .
When I was in Germany back in the 1980's, they had similar laws, in fact, ALL stores closed on Sundays, except for one Sunday a month. ALL stores closed at 6PM every day, and I think many were closed for lunch. It gave small Mom & Pop stores a chance to survive against big chains. It seemed to work quite well. Here, most Mom & Pops are gone. Long gone.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2007, 04:23 PM
Location: UK
296 posts, read 676,979 times
Reputation: 316
If the McCleans obtain the property through adverse possession then good on them.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-23-2007, 01:11 PM
2,253 posts, read 5,338,788 times
Reputation: 2588
Wink It depends

There are still valid uses for an 'Adverse Possession' law.

The case in Boulder seems unwarranted and extreme, however . . .

I know of one case in particular where this law might come into play and would be warranted.

There is a small cottage in the mountains that has been there since 1937. It sits within a small pocket of land defined by river and rock cliffs, which has been and could obviously ever be used by only this small property. But despite a series of transfer of ownership through the years, all legally sanctioned by title companies and the county, it seems since inception there has never been clear and proper title to the entire property in question. This not only includes the driveway entrance and small parking area and a good portion of the yard, but also most of the land the cottage itself sits on.

In 2003 someone from out of state purchased the much larger property that (may) adjoin this property on various sides. While the previous owner may have been aware of certain irregularities, as such things are more than possible in the often very rugged terrain of the mountains, and never had any issue with it, the new owners take a different view. They didn't even know of it, but having been made aware are now thinking of ways to make some money.

Many of these properties were established long ago when surveying methods were not nearly as exact or possible, when people often decided things on an understanding and handshake, and when borders often defined by a tree or pipe stuck in the ground.

Given this, one might ask how fair it would be that a newcomer could take a piece of someone else's property that means everything to it but nothing to them, and they would never find occasion to use? This simply because the proper lines were never drawn at the beginning, even if everyone since understood them to be a certain way and considered it so?

As with any law, one such as Adverse Possession might be abused. But if properly applied it can also insure that the fair outcome prevail.
Quick reply to this message
Old 12-24-2007, 08:19 PM
1 posts, read 3,055 times
Reputation: 10
Default Adverse Possession

[SIZE=3]To Whom It May Concern,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3] I am an outsider and have not lived in Colorado for some years, but I am here visiting family for the holidays. I was reading one of the local papers to find an article about a couple who distributed a letter to their friends in an attempt to explain their reprehensible actions to obtain a neighbor’s land. This couple went to court to obtain their neighbor’s property they say they accessed for more than eighteen years to get to their backyard. I was so deeply disturbed by a number of issues in the article that it has moved me to write this comment.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] This is the case of former Judge, City Council Member, and Mayor of Boulder, Richard McLean and lawyer Edith Stevens who successfully brought a lawsuit to obtain a portion of their neighbor’s property. Don and Susie Kirlin bought an undeveloped lot next door to McLean and Stevens. The Kirlin’s paid the taxes and other associated fees for the property for approximately twenty-three years. However, McLean and Stevens developed their own land in such a manner that it was more convenient to trespass on the Kirlin’s property instead of staying within their own property boundaries. This is a clear example of not respecting someone else’s boundaries, and trespassing for their own convenience. The Kirlin’s were not present to object to McLean and Stevens trespassing. Even if the Kirlin’s were aware McLean and Stevens were utilizing a portion of their property illegally the Kirlin’s were most likely trying to be good neighbors and thought “no harm, no foul.” Had the Kirlin’s known someone could come along and simply take their property away from them they would not have allowed McLean and Stevens an opportunity to squat or trespass on their land. McLean, a former judge would argue ignorance of the law is not a defense, but the intent of adverse possession was not intended to deprive someone of their property. The intent of adverse possession was developed out of other reasons that, for the most part, are now long in the past. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I would say McLean and Stevens in turn ignorantly went on about their business, and did not make a legitimate good faith effort to obtain the land by finding out who the owner was and compensating them appropriately. During all the years McLean and Stevens lived on their own property were they aware that someone else owned the land? Did they make an attempt to purchase the land for themselves, or approach the Kirlin’s with an offer to purchase some of the land? It appears that no attempt was made to do the respectable thing and try to obtain the land morally, but through the deceptive tactic of trespassing and squatting on land belonging to someone else. However, it appears the Kirlin’s attempt to resolve this situation in an amicable way by offering to sell a portion of their land to McLean and Stevens, was rebuffed and the lawsuit continued. McLean and Stevens apparently were not satisfied with the offer and went to court to obtain more, and do it for free. I say free because McLean and Stevens went so far as to ask the judge to order the Kirlin’s to pay for court costs and attorneys fees.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] Based on the fact that McLean and Stevens are prominent citizens in Boulder with a great deal of influence (whether they utilized it or not) in Boulder city government, it would have been appropriate for Boulder County to recuse itself from the legal proceedings. It is extremely hard to believe the Boulder County court system was completely objective and impartial when it came to a ruling in favor of McLean and Stevens when they have been an integral part of Boulder County development. McLean and Stevens are clearly connected to the people in Boulder County government, and familiarity in itself is influence. The judge in this case may have followed the letter of the law, but one of the great things about our common law, is its ability to be fluid with the times. This is a case more about right and wrong, and it is clear what is right. McLean and Stevens did not own the land, pay for the land, or make any payments associated with the cost of that land. McLean and Stevens utilized the land illegally, and quietly bided their time to take advantage of the law.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] In conclusion, I would like to say that McLean and Stevens probably felt they were entitled to the property as they had used it without protest from their neighbors. Unfortunately, their neighbors were not as well versed in the law or as well connected with the people in Boulder County government. In the letter McLean and Stevens wrote to their neighbors they stated they “never trespassed on the Kirlins’ property.” If McLean and Stevens never trespassed on the Kirlins’ property then how can they have made a claim for adverse possession? After all adverse possession is “that those attempting to claim the property are occupying it exclusively (keeping out others) and openly as if it were their own.” Lastly, did McLean and Stevens build barriers on the property in an attempt to keep others out? If there was no barrier to keep others out then the basis for adverse possession is null and void. If McLean and Stevens did trespass, is that not a crime punishable by fine or jail time?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Bick Christon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Boise Idaho [/SIZE]
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-07-2015, 11:55 AM
1 posts, read 496 times
Reputation: 10
See Colorado Revised Statute 38-41-101 enacted in 2008 to require "good faith" of the Adverse Possessor and allow the Judge to assess value to be paid to the person losing the land through Adverse Possession. Otherwise confirming the common law Adverse Possession requirements. Appears to be in response to this case.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

Hide US histogram

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top