Land law isn't a Boulder issue
While 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