Land grab by crafty neighbors

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.

COSIMA KRUEGER-CUNNINGHAM
KIRK CUNNINGHAM
JANELLE COWAN KRUEGER
Boulder

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 greystonewest on November 14, 2007

http://www.abajournal.com/news/landowner...

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?

Chuck Wright
http://www.RonPaul2008.com/

Posted by fbog on November 14, 2007

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.