0
jlmiracle

Trespassers have rights

Recommended Posts

My own experience:

When I bought my house, the previous owner (who was the 2nd owner) told me about running into problems with the property lines. Apparently when the house was built, the garage end of the house protruded over the property line, so the builder had fucked up. When that error was realized, a deal was made with the owner of the vacant lot next door to cut a slice off his lot to sell to the homeowner so that the house would be "legal".

Then, when the 2nd owner decided to expand the other end of the house, in effect, adding a master suite, that was going to protrude onto the vacant lot on that side, so they bought that lot. They also, without thinking, expanded the concrete driveway to allow more parking space beyond the garage, over the altered property line, which runs 5 feet parallel to the garage wall. When he realized his mistake, he contacted the owner of that lot, who gave him two choices: buy the lot from him, or remove the portion of the driveway on his lot.

Well it was about that time he had put the house up for sale so he decided to remove that part of the driveway. That was already done before I saw the house for the first time. Then I noticed the lot was for sale right after I bought the house, so naturally I snapped that up, preferring to have plenty of elbow room.

I don't forsee any future problems but I will definitely consider it money well spent to have a surveyor properly mark my property in the woods when the new neighbor starts clearing for construction.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1010

Hey Billy

(I'm not a lawyer, it depends on the state etc etc)

You may want to have the titles to your adjacent lots specify different ownership, you & wife for one, child for the other. That might be necessary to sell them separately some day.

Long time ago we lost an adverse possession case, 3 acres on the end of an 80 acre piece in the woods. Knew about it before we bought the land. The best we could do was quit-claim the land to the neighbor so we didn't have to pay any more taxes on it. And the surveyor up thread who said fences don't matter ... is wrong or (as likely) we hired the wrong surveyor! :|

Another odd thing happenned out there. A different neighbor lived out of state, had his lawyer subdivide his 160 acres into 5 acre lots before some land-use deadline. His lawyer got the legal description wrong and subdivided our land in error, leaving his untouched. Later when the error was found, he was SOL and could only develop 20 acre lots at 1 house per lot. Big $$ mistakes happen, always best to check stuff out yourself ~~


:)


You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, I just wanted everyone to know that this is our own Don & Susie Kirlin. I have worked for Don and Susie since 1992 back in the Quincy days. I told them about this thread and they were so grateful that the word has spread here. If you want more information I have set up a blog, landgrabber.org.

This is a very personal battle for the Kirlins and they appreciate all the support they get. Thanks on behalf of the Kirlins. Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi, I just wanted everyone to know that this is our own Don & Susie Kirlin. I have worked for Don and Susie since 1992 back in the Quincy days. I told them about this thread and they were so grateful that the word has spread here. If you want more information I have set up a blog, landgrabber.org.

This is a very personal battle for the Kirlins and they appreciate all the support they get. Thanks on behalf of the Kirlins. Ellen



The solution is so simple! Don knows there is a fairly busy DZ nearby at Longmont. Heck, I've seen him there. All he needs to do is hold a skydivers party every Saturday night and invite everybody from MHS. The neighbors won't be able to move out fast enough!:D:D:D
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with my former boss and mentor regarding this case, the resulting opinion was this will be defeated upon appeal give the proper expert testimony about the use and intent of adverse possesion.

Hire a really good surveyor and you have this case overturned.

Adverse possesion is used to correct a MISTAKE, not a willful taking of anothers property with prior knowledge of the boundary.

The people who stole the Kirlins property, had a city lot, with a proper plat of survey, they also have a lot that is in a properly recorded subdivision.;)

Those are irrefutable facts, and a lawyer cannot get around those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey Billy

(I'm not a lawyer, it depends on the state etc etc)

You may want to have the titles to your adjacent lots specify different ownership, you & wife for one, child for the other. That might be necessary to sell them separately some day.

Long time ago we lost an adverse possession case, 3 acres on the end of an 80 acre piece in the woods. Knew about it before we bought the land. The best we could do was quit-claim the land to the neighbor so we didn't have to pay any more taxes on it. And the surveyor up thread who said fences don't matter ... is wrong or (as likely) we hired the wrong surveyor! :|

Another odd thing happenned out there. A different neighbor lived out of state, had his lawyer subdivide his 160 acres into 5 acre lots before some land-use deadline. His lawyer got the legal description wrong and subdivided our land in error, leaving his untouched. Later when the error was found, he was SOL and could only develop 20 acre lots at 1 house per lot. Big $$ mistakes happen, always best to check stuff out yourself ~~


:)



The second part of what you just posted is a classic case of Junior/Senior property rights.

They sold a prescriptive amount of land, it does not matter what you say afterwards, you sell the land prescribed and all you get is what is left.

Even if that means none.

That is what I would say in a court of law, and after being paid for my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The solution is so simple! Don knows there is a fairly busy DZ nearby at Longmont. Heck, I've seen him there. All he needs to do is hold a skydivers party every Saturday night and invite everybody from MHS. The neighbors won't be able to move out fast enough!



Funny as shIt man!!! When I had read the other thread about this Kirlin story this morning, I was thinking the SAME damn thang!!! But in my mind I had ALL of us family members going there.... Just the way " FAMILY REUNIONS" are suppose to be huh?!!! Am I right or what??? :) I'm IN!!...


**"WFFC 07 1/2 in the FREAKING ROCKIES..**
****The WRATH of the SKYGODs****


wish I had a poster for all to dwnld.... ;) roflmMFao

: DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I spoke with my former boss and mentor regarding this case, the resulting opinion was this will be defeated upon appeal give the proper expert testimony about the use and intent of adverse possesion.

Hire a really good surveyor and you have this case overturned.

Adverse possesion is used to correct a MISTAKE, not a willful taking of anothers property with prior knowledge of the boundary.

The people who stole the Kirlins property, had a city lot, with a proper plat of survey, they also have a lot that is in a properly recorded subdivision.;)

Those are irrefutable facts, and a lawyer cannot get around those.



You raise a very good point; although I think the issue may still be unsettled in Colorado.

Actually, the "traditional" public policy behind adverse possession dates back to agrarian, pre-industrial days, when it was designed to encourage land to be put to the "best use possible."

Of course, as society evolves over time, so does its public policy. In modern society, the debate has begun to shift to the "intent or knowledge" (of the actual boundary) by the party claiming adverse possession.

Recently, the very same thing happened to a property owner in New York state. He lost at trial, and then lost again on appeal, so the "taker" got to keep the land. In response, the NY state legislature, feeling just as you all do now, passed a law disallowing adverse possession when the "taker" knew where the correct boundary was. But the governor vetoed the bill, saying that it would open a floodgate of litigation focusing on people's "knowledge" in adverse possession cases.

So this issue remains very much unsettled, and it must be decided, either by the courts or the legislatures, in each of the 50 separate states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a thread in Bonfire titled "Real reason the WFFC was cancelled?" which has taken off on this same topic. I would suggest SC is a better place for it. Someone posted this link which has a lot of info on the case:

http://www.landgrabber.org/

See the FOX31 video:

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=4844534&version=1&locale=EN-US
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Billy

"Fence's make good neighbors"

Suggest after your property is surveyed get it fenced in based on the property boundary the surveyor lays out, then erect a fence.

Real Estate agents get "confused":S about property boundaries when showing prospective buyers real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bump)

Some new developments;
The Kirlins have filed their appeal.
The appeal and the exhibits are available near the top of the page here:

http://www.landgrabber.org/

In the margin on the right of the page under "Most Recent Media" are three new local news articles about the appeal. It is good to see them finally playing hardball with the crooks. The appeal flat out states the crooks fabricated evidence and committed perjury.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bump)

Quote

The Colorado Court of Appeals this week granted a request by Don and Susie Kirlin to send the controversial case back to Boulder County District Court Judge James C. Klein.



Full story: http://dailycamera.com/news/2008/apr/02/land-grab-back-to-judge/
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remember what I said about what the law of adverse possession is designed to remedy.

It is for solving a mistake.

The tresspassers bought land in a recorded subdivision.

They got a plat of survey.

They knew what land was theirs and what was not.

They did conspire to steal land through the fraudulent use of a law.

They admit to tresspassing since 1982 on land that they knew was not theirs.

They are entitled to something through court.

They are entitled to make reparations, including all court costs and lawyers fees to the Kirlins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely agree. I also believe the crooks should pay the Kirlins for the time they wasted on the case, and pay punitive damages, as well as face criminal charges for perjury.

I PM'd LawRocket to see if he could chime in and elaborate on what it means for the appeals court to send it back to the original court, and what might happen from there.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think that the appellate court decided to remind the case back to the original court due to one simple fact.

Case law did not support this decision, and it was so obvious that the appellate court did not need to rule on it, but rather remanded to force the original judge to remedy this by applying the law to the letter.

In other words, the original judge fucked it up, so now he can fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It look slike it was remanded to the court so that the trial court may decide whether ro reverse the judgment or to grant a new trial.

Note: these can be difficult. They are in a situation where they are asking th ejudge to say he was wrong. They are also saying that there is new evidence that was not produced at the first trial, but at least out here they have to show a reason why it was not available.

I cannot comment on the long term implications. It does not sound like the appeals court reversed it.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just remember what I said about what the law of adverse possession is designed to remedy.

It is for solving a mistake.



Adverse Possession is not for "solving mistake." Otherwise it would not be called "Adverse."

The reasons for it are several. First, it operates like a statute of limitation for the titleholder to to assert aging claims of things like trespass - in California the Adverse possession procedures are part of the sections of statutes of limitations! Also, it's been a longstanding policy that the government wants a person who is possessing property (except under lease or license) to be the legal owner of it.

Quote

If the judge rules in favor of the tresspassers, he will be setting a dangerous precedent in case law.



Wrong. If the Judge rules in favor of trespassers in this, the judge will be applying precedent dating back to AT LEAST the 13th century.

This is the sort of thing that really sucks for the property owner. But there is also the idea of "Do something about it."

What I don't know from this is whether the trespassers were awarded actual "adverse possession" or a "prescription." They might not make much of a difference to 99 percent of folsk out there, but it's pretty important in my line of work.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>From then on all tresspassers will have a legitimized claim to others
>land merely by breaking the law regarding unlawful entry upon lands.

And there's a lesson there.

If you own property, and you have someone move onto that property, and you let them do so, you have to change your mind before 25 years elapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What I don't know from this is whether the trespassers were awarded actual "adverse possession" or a "prescription." They might not make much of a difference to 99 percent of folks out there, but it's pretty important in my line of work.



Copy of the judges order here: http://www.landgrabber.org/docs/Klein.pdf
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No real improvements were made to the property in order to demonstrate adverse possession.

Wood chips and or landscape gone over the line and wood piles are not real improvements.

To leave such expendable items such as firewood and or wood chips or even stone is not demonstrating possession. Littering is not possession.

The lot was properly surveyed, and in fact was recorded in a subdivsion plat.

It was awlays known that the land did not belong to them, the markers of the property need not be visible, as quite often the corners of the property are marked with iron pipe driven to below the soils surface.


Even with the laws written as they are, I see no evidence that an effort was made to demonstrate open and notorious adverse posession.

Some of you may think I am wrong, but I remind you that I am a Land Surveyor, trained in the division of, and determination of the proper ownership of land, you are not.

You may as well argue that you understand being a physician and the treatment of patienst without being a Physician, or Nurse

Seems the judge was in quite a rush to hand over a lot which is platted and in fact a city lot, not a meets and bounds property with an ambigous perception as to ownership.

Items beginning at #17 are quite damning to the tresspassers.

Colorado law seems to be written in such a way that is in favor of ignoring platted land,or lots, in favor of open theft of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No real improvements were made to the property in order to demonstrate adverse possession.

Wood chips and or landscape gone over the line and wood piles are not real improvements.

To leave such expendable items such as firewood and or wood chips or even stone is not demonstrating possession. Littering is not possession.



Agreed. I did a lot of reading on the topic a couple months ago, and something that seemed to arise repeatedly was that "use" of the land generally refers to one or more of:
a) Building on it, or constructing a fence around it.
b) Planting crops on it.
c) Grazing cattle on it.

There have been no claims of any of that happening here.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0