Home › News › Boulder & County News
Boulder's infamous 'land-grab' case settled
Kirlins say they will only have to cede 12 percent of south Boulder lot
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Joint statement
"Edith Stevens and Richard McLean and Don and Susie Kirlin report that they have settled the lawsuit among them. As part of the settlement, the parties have agreed to divide the land at issue.
"This settlement allows the parties to put this longstanding and difficult dispute behind them."
Timeline of the case
1982: Richard McLean, a former District Court judge and Boulder mayor, and Edith Stevens, an attorney, purchase a home on Hardscrabble Drive in south Boulder.
1984: Former Navy aviator Don Kirlin and his school-teacher wife Susie Kirlin pay $120,000 for an adjacent piece of property, which sits vacant for more than two decades.
October 2006: After construction of a fence that cuts off a path McLean and Stevens have used on the Kirlins’ property to access their own backyard, the former judge and his wife sue, asserting the centuries-old legal doctrine of adverse possession.
Oct. 17, 2007: Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein rules in favor of McLean and Stevens, awarding them 34 percent of the adjacent lot — one of two owned by the Kirlins.
Nov. 18, 2007: After the case makes national headlines, more than 200 people gather on the Kirlins’ vacant lot to protest Klein’s decision.
Nov. 22, 2007: Two state lawmakers begin work to change Colorado’s adverse possession law.
Dec. 10, 2007: McLean and Stevens report receiving a "threatening" package, containing a note and ammunition, in the mail.
Dec. 23, 2007: McLean and Stevens mail letters addressed to neighbors and friends "who have supported us," saying they hoped to restore peace in the neighborhood.
Jan. 10: The Kirlins file an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals.
April 15: Prompted by this case, Gov. Bill Ritter signs a bill directing Colorado district and county court judges to step down from cases involving other current or former judges within the same district, when requested.
April 26: Ritter signs a bill making several changes to the law of adverse possession, including requiring trespassers to have "good faith" in the claims and to pay fair-market value for any land won in adverse-possession claims.
July 26: Dozens of people gather in Boulder’s Central Park for a "rights rally" to protest the law of adverse possession.
Nov. 4: Boulder County voters opt to retain Judge Klein on the bench despite his controversial ruling, and an effort to unseat him because of it.
Nov. 18: Both couples announce they have reached a settlement.
STORY TOOLS
More Boulder & County News
- Washington Village developer back with another plan
- Chase suspect says he was 'immobile' at time of killing
- Gym memberships sag
Share and Enjoy [?]
Ongoing Coverage
Stay up-to-date in our Ongoing Coverage Section for the Adverse Possession CaseVIDEO: Nov. 18 protest picnic in support of the Kirlins. WATCH »
VIDEO: Take a look at Don and Susie Kirlin's land and hear them speak about the case. WATCH »
MAP: Satellite image Google map of Hardscrabble Drive.
AUDIO: Listen to NPR's report on the case.
AUDIO: Local singer Don Wrege composed several songs about the land dispute.
- 1. Stealing Land From Our Neighbor
- 2. This Land Belongs to Don & Susie
- 3. Edie & Dick (The Grinch Theme)
Email Updates
Get e-mail updates as the story updates. Email automatically checks every 4 hours for new articles.
Documents:
PDF: Read the police report about the suspicious package
PDF: Read the order by Judge Klein denying the Kirlins' case
Two Boulder neighbors have settled a land dispute that made national headlines and prompted state legislators to change the law that allowed it to happen.
Don and Susie Kirlin, who originally lost 34 percent of one of their two vacant lots to neighbors Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, agreed to cede about 12 percent of the million-dollar property instead, the couples announced Tuesday.
“This settlement allows the parties to put this long-standing and difficult dispute behind them,” they wrote in a 48-word joint statement.
Under the terms of the agreement, which still must be sent from the Colorado Court of Appeals to Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein for final approval, McLean and Stevens will own a five-foot strip of the Kirlins’ next-door lot, widening to nine feet at the north end of the property.
The total transaction equals 540 square feet of the 4,659-square-foot lot.
The settlement ends a high-profile case that divided the south Boulder neighborhood after Klein’s October 2007 decision to award the land to McLean, a former judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney. The couple sued for the Hardscrabble Drive property under the centuries-old law of adverse possession, which allows trespassers who openly use land for 18 years to claim it as their own.
The case, which the Kirlins had appealed, prompted public protests; death threats against McLean and Stevens; and an unsuccessful effort to fight Klein’s reinstatement in this month’s election. It spurred changes to Colorado’s adverse possession law, and spawned a new law prohibiting judges from hearing cases involving current or former judges from the same district.
Both couples called the settlement agreement a win-win situation: the Kirlins will be able to sell the property with enough land left to allow a house to be constructed on it, while McLean and Stevens will retain access to a path around the side of their house.
“I would have never done something like this to my neighbor, however I am happy that it’s finally over,” Don Kirlin said.
Stevens said the settlement ends a tense chapter in the neighborhood’s history.
“I think that the community will be relieved to see that the case is settled,” she said.
‘A fully buildable lot’
Although they’re still disappointed the lawsuit ever happened, the Kirlins said that having at least some of the valuable land back is satisfying.
“It’s cost me over $400,000” to fight the lawsuit, Don Kirlin said, “and after spending it, I only get to lose 12 percent of my property that I already owned.”
He said the property, with its expansive view of the Flatirons, is now for sale — listed at $925,000. A house with a footprint as large as 1,540 square feet could be built on it, he said.
“The end result is, and the most important part to me, is that it allows a fully buildable lot,” Don Kirlin said.
The investment, he said, was always meant to finance the couple’s “dream home,” which they still intend to build on their adjacent lot.
The terms of the settlement include provisions that allow construction crews to use the piece of the lot owned by McLean and Stevens for access to the site, but whoever buys the property must agree to restore the McLean-Stevens land to its original state after construction.
Don Kirlin said his neighbors approached him with the offer to settle the longtime dispute.
“I think their gut feeling was, and their legal counsel advised them, that there was a good chance they would lose in the court of appeals,” he said.
Kirlin said his neighbors stand to gain more from the deal than just land.
“Their friends abandoned them,” Don Kirlin said. “They want to try and attempt to regain some of their stature in the community.”
‘I don’t know why it took them so long’
McLean and Stevens said they had always hoped to settle the case, which was prompted by construction of a fence that cut off a path they had used unquestioned for 26 years.
They have said on several occasions that they tried to resolve the dispute without resorting to a lawsuit.
“You always are trying to settle the case without raising the level of antagonism, without incurring a lot of attorney’s fees, and we had hoped from the very start, before we filed the lawsuit, that we would be able to settle the case,” Stevens said.
The couple has long said their lawsuit was about preserving their right to use the land to access their own backyard, based on their two decades’ of previous use.
“I think from the very start, our goal was to retain access to the back of our property and to protect the trees and shrubs that we planted there,” Stevens said.
McLean echoed his wife, saying he wished the resolution could have come sooner.
“I’m quite satisfied with it, because we made the offer nearly a year ago,” he said. “I don’t know why it took them so long.”
Negotiations have been ongoing for more than a year, and the Kirlins said previous terms weren’t acceptable them.
‘Nobody had to lose this case’
In the year since the Boulder case gained national attention, Colorado lawmakers decided to revamp the law of adverse possession. As of July 1, the law gives judges the power to force adverse possessors to pay for the land they win, and to compensate the original owner for back property taxes and interest.
The case was unique for the way it affected the public, said Andy Low, attorney for the Kirlins.
“Out here in the West, people feel very strongly about property rights,” Low said. “It touched on a lot of people’s concerns about their own property.”
He said both couples were eventually able to rise above the “bitterness” that comes with lawsuits like this one, and reach a compromise.
“Ultimately, I think the headline for me is the case has a happy ending,” Low said. “Nobody had to lose this case, which is very unusual.”
Kimberly Hult, attorney for McLean and Stevens, agreed.
“This settlement should resolve the dispute in its entirety, including the appeal,” she said.
Posted by jjmabaseb on November 18, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
pretty sure I predicted that was going to happen a long time ago...
Posted by jgarcia on November 18, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope the rightful owners can still build their home as originally intended. Settled or not, this case will always live in my mind as an absolute abuse of the system from those who have the knowledge, resources and lack the values to respect the property of others.
Posted by boulder_native on November 18, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is what should have been ruled by the biased fool Judge "I'm honored to have you in my court" KLein in the first place.
The law was never meant to hand over enough property to wipe out the original owner's value, it was supposed to be for minor adjustments. This all could have been avoided if a unbiased and intelligent judge had presided over the case.
Posted by Flatirony on November 18, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
15% too much.
Posted by FuriousB on November 18, 2008 at 11:07 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by observer1 on November 18, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does the settlement include refunding the Kirlins 15% of the property taxes they've paid over the last 18 years?
Posted by ImInBoulder on November 18, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Enjoy your big pile of 15%, McLean/Stevens. You really deserve it.
Good luck with that honor/credibility thing, too.
Posted by potbelliechef on November 18, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, TomIII, that's a wee bit extreme.
boulder_native - adverse possession has been around since the Magna Carta. Judge Klein ruled on the law, and that's his job. The law may not be fair, but that means the law should be changed.
Posted by CityZen on November 18, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Judge Klein used his discretion at every point in the case that he could to steal that land for his friends. Seriously, potbellied, do you think awarding 34% of the property (thus rendering it unbuildable and worth less) was beyond reproach? He did not uphold the letter or the spirit of the law.
Everyone saw what Klein did last week, right?
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/...
Another fine instance of being "legal." This judge has some serious lapses in judgment.
My condolences to the Kirlins--I hope to never live next door to thieves. Or to have to plead a case before the dishonorable Judge Klein.
Posted by noboresident on November 18, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see the whack jobs are out in force. "hanged by an angry mob...put their heads on pikes."
Good God. Seek professional help now you freak.
Posted by dc on November 18, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cost of Living Next to Certain Neighbors -15% of Your Land
Stress - priceless
It's a shame the Kirlins suffered.
Posted by johnbarleycorn on November 18, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
The Kirlins said they plans to sell the property.
---------------------------------------------
Did my 2nd grader write this?
Posted by cgillard99 on November 18, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A controversy that was inflamed by a Daily Camera article that initially gave only one side of the story. Linch mobs are not pretty and that's what almost happened and no one wants to cool down even yet except for the 2 parties involved. What is most obscene is a legal system where such excessive sums of money are wasted before a compromise is achieved.
Posted by Yerba on November 18, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Kirlins are great people, and I'm glad this is finally over for them, even though it's not the best outcome.
I hope McLean and Stevens get the bad karma they deserve.
Stories like this make me lose faith in the legal system ... and humanity.
Posted by fbog on November 18, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
McLean and Stevens will now get two years of construction noise to remind them of the rewards of their avarice.
Posted by boulder_native on November 18, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
potbelliechef wrote "adverse possession has been around since the Magna Carta. Judge Klein ruled on the law, and that's his job. The law may not be fair, but that means the law should be changed."
So? I clearly pointed out that out when I wrote, "The law was never meant to hand over enough property to wipe out the original owner's value, it was supposed to be for minor adjustments."
What part of "the law was never meant to..." did you not understand?
You mis-understand if you think the law was meant to hand over someone's entire property. In its modern incarnation, its purpose is to account for minor mistakes in fence lines and corners of buildings crossing portions of the neighboring property. ONLY that small contended portion with some minmal and reasonable setback is meant to be tranferred with this law.
The BDC writes at a 4th grade level because readers like potbellie read there.
Posted by rayq on November 18, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mclean, Stevens, and Klein will forever be examples of the worst of the "justice system"
If Stevens thinks somehow this makes her a good person, it doesn't. Her access has always been her back door.
The Kirlins are the victims in this saga and have payed the price for M/S's sins.
Posted by jimgoes on November 18, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, and why is this newsworthy again?????
Posted by zivo24 on November 18, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What people like potbelliedchief and others fail to realize about Klein's decision making is that he had the option to consider the fact that the Kirlin's had paid property taxes and HOA fees on the property for more than two decades as evidence that the property was not abandoned.
The AP law that was in effect at the time did not require that payment of taxes and fees were to be considered proof of ownership and maintainence, but it did not preclude a judge from considering them either as such either.
Awarding someone's property to someone else is not a step any judge should take lightly. The burden of proof of adverse possession should be almost wholly on the claimant, not the deeded owner.
By blatantly and willfully disregarding the Kirlin's extensive and expensive financial maintaince of this property..when he had the choice to consider it, he demonstrated extremely questionable judgement and possible bias.
Posted by potbelliechef on November 18, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
boulder_native - Witty response. Let me try again. How did Judge Klein misapply the law. If you have a good response, support it with citations. The following, by the way, is from a Colorado Court of Appeals decision from 2005, which, incidentally, rejected a claim of adverse possession in El Paso County:
"To obtain title by adverse possession, a party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his possession was actual, adverse, hostile, under a claim of right, exclusive, and uninterrupted for the statutory period. Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989). The statutory period in Colorado is eighteen years. Section 38-41-101(1), C.R.S. 2004.
Whether possession is hostile or adverse is ordinarily a question of fact. Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Ritchey, 888 P.2d 298 (Colo. App. 1994). The question is resolved "by reasonable deductions from the acts as well as declarations of the parties involved."Vade v. Sickler, 118 Colo. 236, 240, 195 P.2d 390, 392 (1948) .
An appellate court cannot substitute itself as a finder of fact, and the factual findings of the trial court sitting without a jury are not to be disturbed upon appeal unless clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. "But such restraint in no way limits the power of [an appellate court] to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial judge where they are not supported by any evidence in the record or where the law has not been applied correctly."Anderson v. Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc., 170 Colo. 7, 12, 458 P.2d 756, 758 (1969) .
For use to be "hostile,"the adverse possessor must demonstrate an intention to claim exclusive ownership of the property occupied. Anderson, supra. While the possessor need not form the specific intent to take property from its owner, his occupancy of the property must be adverse to the rights of the record holder. Palmer Ranch, Ltd. v. Suwansawasdi, 920 P.2d 870 (Colo. App. 1996)."
You're welcome to your opinions, but regarding the application of the law, Judge Klein's was appropriate.
Posted by clackmon on November 18, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I think from the very start our goal was to retain access to the back of our property and to protect the trees and shrubs that we planted there"
no. i don't believe you. besides, why did you plant so close to the property line that you had to steal your neighbors land to 'protect' your trees and shrubs? why would you position your home on your lot in such a way that you had to steal your neighbor's land to retain access to your back yard??
*bangs head on desk*
Posted by MountainHaven on November 18, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh heck, it's been settled, the Kirlins keep a buildable lot buildable, the thieves still have access to the back of their property and the law has been changed. Enough already!
As for the poster who said the AP is for minor concerns/issues, ever had it happen to you? Been there...and no issue where your land is concerned is minor. I surely hope the Kirlins make this transfer of title for the 15% run with the property and not with owners or the thieves will just as surely try it again with the next owner. Better yet Kirlins - BUILD A FENCE, a BIG fence! If they would have done this a long time ago, the $400K would have been saved.
Posted by UncleEthan on November 18, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, read the article. The Kirlins are putting the land up for sale. Would you want to build a dream house next to upstanding neighbors like McLean & Stevens?
I think that the Kirlins should offer to sell the property to the Defense Department. Obama wants to shut down Gitmo and this would be a perfect place to relocate some of those inmates! Allah Akbar!
Posted by jbird on November 18, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IIRC the Kirlins are pretty damn well off, much moreso than Dick and Edie. I think Dick and Edie began to run out of money, and now they claim they only wanted access to the back of their property and to protect shrubs and trees. Um, OK, riight.
Dick and Edie have now lied about their true motivations in the beginning, middle, and now in the end. Pathetic.
Posted by Buffy on November 18, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a waste of money, effort and newsprint, all for basically a five foot additional set back. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.
To Don & Suzie: It was said along time ago that "fences make good neighbors" build one with barbed wire NOW!
Posted by BoulderBorn on November 18, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a shame that the Kirlins will not be able to enjoy the land they dreamed of building on for so long. McLean and Stevens are jointly a very nasty piece of work. Their dishonesty and ill intent throughout this process have been utterly transparent. It's too bad they are being rewarded at all, but I can certainly understand the Kirlins making the choice to settle. They strike me as nice, happy people caught in an ugly situation. They've chosen to end the bleeding and go forward. I wish them a Merry Christmas and a new lot somewhere with mountain views and kind, fun neighbors.
Posted by boulder_native on November 18, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
potbellie - ok, your first post accused me of not knowing that adverse posession has been around since the magna carta. That was a gross mis-representation of what I posted.
As far as your more circumspect 2nd response as to the details of the application of the law, I can at least concur that there is room for various interpretations of the law. With this in mind, you would be hard pressed to argue that a whole 1/3 of the lot was needed to maintain the McTheivens access to their back yard. The 15% more than adequately does that and encompasses the entire worn path that is the only evidence of the adverse possession.
This is exactly what I wrote originally which is that the small portion of the lot that had the path was clearly subject to adverse possesion, but the full 1/3 that klien gave was ridiculous, unsupportable, unnecessary, and just plain biased judgement.
Posted by respectsnothing on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Judge Klein's application of the law was biased from the start! In court and on the record he states "I'm honored to have you in my court..." as boulder_native pointed out. With that statement alone he should've recused himself; that's where he made a misake in applying the law you speak so fondly of Ms/Miss/Mr potbelliechef.
BTW I did vote to NOT retain this fool!! And I'm glad there was some sort of justice for the Kirlins.
Posted by Baileyboy on November 18, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
F-you McClean and Stevens. You are crooks and this settlement won't win you any fans in Boulder. You, along with Klein, are the worst of the legal system. May your karma come back to haunt you ten fold.
I was so disappointed that Klein was re-elected. Guess it's pretty tough to lose that job once you have it.
Posted by getcraziesout on November 18, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't believe Klein was retained- from the land grab case to letting serial killer John Engel out of prison 33 years early (and into the halfway house in Boulder where he has since re-offended)This man thinks he "is the law." To everyone who didn't research the judges up for retainment = get educated next time idiots, it took me 15 minutes to read the entire judicial review literature and search for news stories on these judges.
Posted by climbmnts on November 18, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"McLean, a former judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney,"
This was a crooked abuse of power...I voted against judge Klien.........
Posted by phoenix_rises on November 18, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boulder's "spread the wealth" program.
Posted by theatv on November 18, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At the very beginning, didn't many of us (and the HOA bylaws, if I'm not mistaken) suggest this arrangement. Unbelievable.
Posted by rayq on November 18, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Steven's goal was always to protect access to her backyard and protect the trees and shrubs they planted: Whats up with the lawsuit to gain an additional 9 inchs of the path??? Once again, the truth is not in Edie. Don't forget, the path is alledged to be fabricated.
Posted by my2cents on November 18, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still trying to figure out what part of this miscarriage of justice was "under color of title". Colorado must have a very different definition of Adverse Possession than any other state. Usually the possession must be open and notorious (I supposed you could argue that here except that they were given permission so no "notorious") Under Color of Title - that means they had to believe the land was theirs - they didn't, they knew it wasn't yet they got it anyway. I'm still confused except to accept what everyone else says about Boulder and Judges making things easy for their cronies.
Posted by potbelliechef on November 18, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
boulder_native - I appreciate your clarification. Without actually having read the trial transcript, I can't really comment on the substance of your response. From my time doing expert testimony and litigation support, I can tell you that judges (and presumably juries) are limited to the testimony and evidence presented during trial - it's the one bite at the apple, as the saying goes. Evidence presented after a trial is very difficult to get admitted - just look at the difficulty of getting wrongly convicted people off of death row using DNA evidence. It happens, but it takes a committed attorney and family a long time beating their heads against a wall.
Regardless, the two parties have settled the claim, and given that an appellate opinion was never issued, no new law was made. Everything accusatory that follows is irrelevant, though it does make for some interesting reading.
Posted by oilburner on November 18, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Kirlins have always acknowledged that under A/P law they would be forfeiting part of their land, and offered a settlement way back in the beginning. Seems like they are ok with this, so maybe we should drop it.
Posted by stever23 on November 18, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They agreed to reduce what they got from about 34% to 15%. That tells me they were smart enough to know their case was not iron clad. I know you may say they agreed only out of pressure and to end it quickly. But if they 100% believed they were right, they did not need to agree to give any of it back.
Posted by mrw650 on November 18, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
[[The agreement will give McLean and Stevens access to a five-foot strip of the Kirlins' next-door lot, which widens to nine feet at the north end of the property.]]
This should have been done from the start, but Nooo, McLean and Stevens had to covet their neighbor and work the system of corruption. They don't deserve an inch. Shame on them.
Posted by musicgrinder on November 18, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Still a crock and stealing someone's land in my book.
I guess.. this kind of thing just happens in Boulder.
Posted by tee on November 18, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stever must think that $400,000 already paid in legal fees is not an impediment to further legal action.
Being right is no defense against people with enough $$ to drive up the legal fees to this level.
Posted by rocksolid on November 18, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bottom line is that now maybe Don and Susie can recap their $400,000 in legal fees by selling the land. There is no justice here no matter how you slice it, dice it and try to make it sound nice. I can't speak for the Kirlins but there must be little consolation in this supposed settlement. And I would bet big dollars that they have a gag order against them to say how they really feel.
Posted by MicMacGirl on November 18, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Still BS - neighbors should not be taking another neighbors property. End of story. There is something fundamental very wrong with McClean and Stevens.
Posted by rayq on November 18, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Besides times being tough for the real estate market, I don't believe a whole lot of people would like to live next to the Mcleans. Tough sell. Maybe location will help
Posted by rasinden57 on November 18, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I once owned a home that the only access to the back yard was 1. Through the garage 2. Out the patio door. Guess I am stupid, but never once did it occur to me that my neighbors were obligated to let me use/steal their land for access. Silly me. The property was what it was, and I cut down several trees and chopped them up into chunks and hauled them out through the garage. Guess if I had a friend like Judge Klein, I could have commandeered the property adjacent to mine and ended up owning it.
The suit for an additional 9 inches is very revealing. The true motive was to render the property unbuildable. That would retain the view for McLean/Stevens to enjoy. The he** with the real owners. Serious ethical problem here.
Posted by MelCap on November 18, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
D&E, are still just as nasty as they ever were... Who will forget that?
Posted by trappist99 on November 18, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THis was never about the Kirlins. It has always been "how the hell can someone do that"?
Mclean/Stevens have their places in history.
Posted by rasinden57 on November 18, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tom---settle down, dude.
Posted by rocknwsc on November 18, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a stupid law! And how crass that someone would actually try to steal land this way. Really rotten.
Posted by monkeys on November 18, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"but whoever buys the property must agree to restore the McLean-Stevens land to its original state after construction." You mean, restore it to the Kirlins, which was its original state?
By the way, the houses in that neighborhood are giant. The lot still has room for a 1500 sq. ft. home. Won't that be dwarf-size compared to the others?
Dick and Edie have to be some of the nastiest, most despicable people in Boulder. Their "values" make me sick.
Posted by meatpieandtatters on November 18, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
M&S are still thieves, reprobates and parasites. They should give back everything they stole!...with the help of a warped fellow-judge.
Posted by Colorado_Rocks on November 18, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those 2 thieves should be driven out of town!! I bet they don't have many friends now. Maybe karma will come in the form of a hungry crook-eating mountain lion.
Posted by joker49 on November 19, 2008 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hattie Wrote:"reiterations of all the things that have already been said".O K,I'm half educated but I still know that that is the Dept.of redundancy Dept.You can be pompous hatt, but please check your work.As far as the settlement,it stinks.But not quite as bad as before.$400k is alot to defend what should not have had to be defended.Bad neighbors,bad judge.A plague on their houses.
Posted by colochiz on November 19, 2008 at 4:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole thing could have been cleared up a whole lot sooner if McLean/Stevens had simply told the original judge, "thanks but we only need about 5-9 feet and not the whole 34%". Wasn't that the original offer from the Kirlins anyway.
Posted by Boulder_89 on November 19, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Edie and Dick, you're still the poster couple for what’s wrong with Boulder.
Posted by JG on November 19, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a shame. I hope that they rot in Hell.
Posted by IXLR82 on November 19, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon Benet, the CU recruiting witch hunt, this ludicrous land grab. Gee...wonder why when you mention Boulder anywhere else in the country people kind of chuckle and shake their heads....great national press.
Posted by phoenix_rises on November 19, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What death threats were made against the McStevens? No one was convicted of that. Whay can the DC say that death threats were made against them when we can not say that the McStevens legally stole the land? Many people, including some that looked at the case, believe that the "death threats" were false claims.
Posted by janabelle on November 19, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No matter how the lawyers or judge try to spin this one-- Mclean and Stevens were rewarded 12% of the Kirlin's property for 18 years of tresspassing on someone else's private property.
The judge, McLean, Stevens and their lawyers are are totally shameless.
Posted by boulder_native on November 19, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hate-monger lives up to its moniker with this one...."a little demonstration of skillful insult"
Try contributing an intelligent comment pertinent to the topic, INSTEAD of insults, and see if you don't get your blog entries removed...
and maybe feel better about yourself too?!
Posted by wiseone on November 19, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For the remainder of their pitiful lives Dick and Edie should be thanking the Kirlins for allowing them to get out of this somewhat gracefully.
But Boulder will never forget...
Posted by pjs on November 19, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now their attorneys are going to have to find a real job.
Posted by NasalDrainage on November 19, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“Out here in the West, people feel very strongly about property rights,” Low said
What does this statement mean? That in the East people don't mind losing their property?
Posted by abovemypaygrade on November 19, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hattmonger:
“Every angry, blustering comment that can be constructed out of simple words will now be reposted for the third or fourth time.”
“Suspicions confirmed: Another noob from out of town weighs in.”
“The comments remain as stupid as ever. What a mook festival.”
“Hilarious! You abusive, self-righteous pathetic specimens can't take a little demonstration of skillful insult without nailing the removal button.”
“What a collection of cowardly custards!”
frozen_mackerel:
“Comment forums are like the Guestbooks of Hell.”
“I'd say you and the rest of the weasel pack would be more likely to shoot them in the back from concealment.”
You’re both so much smarter and witty than the rest of us.
Posted by JT on November 19, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Clearly the reporter didn't do a very good job on this story.
Mr. Urie, what are the terms of the settlement? Do they include the Kirlins' being reimbursed for years of property tax payments? Does the settlement get recorded with the deed so that the new owners of the land know that the limits of their purchase? Who pays the lawyers? What does the original judge in this case (Klein) think of the settlement? Is he relieved that his decision won't be held to higher scrutiny by the appellate court? Does he regret no recusing himself from the case in which there was a conflict of interest (which conflict of interest formed the basis of new state law)? Etc.?...
Why can't the editors and reporters do a good job of reporting on local news?
Posted by JT on November 19, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Grammatical errors in my post above. Apologies; you get the point of the questions (substance over form!).
Posted by urie_h on November 19, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JT the terms of civil settlements are not always public. There are terms that both parties agreed to keep private.
Heath Urie
Posted by ImInBoulder on November 19, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"What will happen", Edie, is that you and your husband will still be pariahs in the Boulder community and your reputation is forever tarnished. 'Nuff said.
Posted by phish56 on November 19, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to date Suzie
Posted by sojourner on November 19, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Case closed. Now that this thing has been settled, perhaps we can let go and move on to discussing how the City can proceed in limiting the size of the house to be built on the Kirlin's lot?!
Posted by boulder_native on November 19, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fishy writes " where drygulching, back-shooting, cheating at cards, and spitting on the floor were the norm."
This is usually said by persons who have gained their myopic familiarity with the American West through Hollywood movies.
This is in stark contrst to folks that were actually raised here by family that's been here a hundred+ years.
Posted by wiseone on November 19, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sane-
FYI: Judge Klein was not voted out of office.
Posted by JT on November 19, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"JT the terms of civil settlements are not always public. There are terms that both parties agreed to keep private. Heath Urie"
That may be true, but your article did not indicate this. Are we to presume that this is the case? Why didn't you ask either party to the settlement regarding other terms, including payment of property taxes, etc.? Why didn't you do a follow-up interview with the judge (Klein)? Etc.? Why are the Kirlins selling the property (bad will toward neighbors, etc...?) Take your cue from all the questions the readers are posting here.
Posted by rocksolid on November 19, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no satisfaction in this. Thieves are thieves and this doesn't change a thing.
Posted by katiekurt on November 19, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Agree.. thieves are thieves...
They will eventually be judged.
Posted by MelCap on November 19, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes indeed, thieves are thieves.
Thieves have victims.
Don and Susie paid the price, we in turn had a law changed that will helps protect others from would be thieves.
Thanks for that.
Posted by greystonewest on November 19, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Taste it Dick.
Taste it Edie.
Ran out of money while you were trying to steal?
Have you paid Kim Hult?
Will you ever pay Kim Hult? Or will you will that to your children?
Posted by greystonewest on November 19, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As this is done, I would like to thank everybody that came to the picnic.
To Dick and Edie,
You don't know who 'greystonewest' may be, but believe me,
we have been together and I don't like you.
btw, you don't like me either. Thank God.
p.s. Dick, don't go on TV anymore, you aint sounding nor looking too good.
I have just stated a fact.
Posted by greystonewest on November 19, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and in the end,
The love you take, is equal to the love you make.
Posted by neverwinter on November 20, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see a resolution to this though I am sorry the Kirlin's lost any amount of their land.
My ideal resolution, Dick and Edith have to give back all the land, pay for the Kirlin's lawyers bills and finally have to get the heck out of town due to no one willing to talk or deal with them.
But sadly, My ideal world is not always what the world turns out to be.
The worst part for the Kirlin's? Who and the heck would want to live next to Dick and Edith? That property will have a hard time selling.
Posted by johnbarleycorn on November 21, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good luck selling that property--no way would I want to live next to neighbors like Dick and Edie.
Posted by mitchfriedman on November 24, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So let me get this straight. The Kirlin's are out several hundred thousand bucks in attorney fees to fight for what was rightly their's, and they wind up having to give up 15% of their land to a bunch of thieves. My only hope is that McLean/Stevens are shunned in Boulder wherever they go. Everyone should go over to them and let them know how they feel. If we make their lives bad enough they may have to leave Boulder. What goes around comes around and their day will come. I just hope the Camera puts in on the front page. To bad Klein was retained. The good old boys club is alive and well in the judicial system.
Posted by Tradesman on November 26, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dick and Edie dumped in front of Kirlins' house and then got the toilet paper from judge Klein to clean themselves.
Posted by Tradesman on November 26, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Question:
If a real estate broker would offer the land for sale, would she/he be obligated to disclose the adverse possession case to an uninformed buyer?
Posted by rayq on November 26, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The real estate broker would be obligated to disclose any material fact that could affect the value of the property.
Posted by Tradesman on November 26, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I assume bad karma, bad taste or a remaining stigmatism couldn't be called a material fact, and the celebrity neighbor with a tendency to grab neighbor property neither? But, as I'm writing this, I think Dick and Edith as neighbors could affect the property value negatively - it wouldn't count as a material fact I suppose.
Posted by rael137 on November 26, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought the "death threats" were alleged to be sent by the victims to themselves? At least that was what the police implied when they declined to pursue the case.
Posted by tcw2011 on December 2, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seemed like a perfectly legitimate decision when I first heard about it last year. The law encourages maximum utilization of the land, and it appears that the original owners were neglecting the property, especially since the use was open and obvious and the original owners made no effort to oust them from the land. Pithy statements about the importance of property rights aside, this is a long-recognized doctrine with valid policy aims. On the other hand, the law encourages amicable settlement, so I think this case ended as well as it could have. No reason to term the adverse possessors thieves, or imply that what they did was wrong when it was completely legal and well in excess of the 18-year statutory minimum. The original owners should have been more proactive if they wanted to keep their land; that's all there is to it.
Posted by neverwinter on December 5, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can you be move proactive if you walk by it once or twice a week pay taxes and home owners association dues? Took care of weeds and maintained the land.
I guess they could have sat in the middle of their property with a shotgun and fired in the air when ever someone stepped a inch onto their propery.
They were robbed and nothing short of that.
Posted by tcw2011 on December 7, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neverwinter, the NPR story that first alerted me to this case last year, the couple had used a path on the land and farmed it. Adverse possession is required to be "open and obvious," and gardening someone else's land without their permission is about as "open and obvious" as you can get.
If someone has a garden on your land, then you've got to tell them to get off (i.e.,ejectment). That's as proactive as the law requires you to be. You can't claim you didn't know of someone else's use of the land if it is so obvious, only in cases of minor encroachments.
If someone is obviously using your land and you haven't ejected them for over 20 years (or whatever the statutory period was), then you're not taking care of your land and you're subject to lose it under this doctrine.
Obviously, the lesson is that you should make sure that no one is using your land, and if you find someone is then you should tell them to get off as soon as you discover it or have the police assist you if necessary.
Posted by neverwinter on December 9, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay tcw, you win, I'm sold.
Don and Susie, shame on you for expecting to keep your property!!!
You should give over more due to your not seeing a trail in loose dirt that appeared after the lawsuit. As well as not seeing people using the property knowing that one of the responsibilities of the Home owners Association to watch for encroachments. As well as having all of your witnesses not believed but all of you M&S believed. Then having the Judge thrilled on having the M&S in the court room. And then.....
On second thought I am not convinced.
Posted by tcw2011 on December 15, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Didn't expect to convince you, neverwinter. Doesn't change the fact that the law was followed, whether or not you agree with it.
Posted by phoenix_rises on December 23, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tcw2011, Consider the source, Don and Susie are friends/donate to the local NPR station that did the interview.
Use the land for 18 years? That path was not visiable in Satellite photos before this case. Photos taken since this case began clearly show the photos so you should see it in the old ones....if it was there.
Exclusive use? Nope, that 'path leads to open space.
Garden? The court case was about a path to McStevens back yard, not about a garden.
This case was about poor judgement. The Kirlin's over estimated the good judgement of judge Klein and the character of their neighbors.
Don't talk about applying the law as written. McStevens never proved exclusive use for 18 years. Saying its so does not make it so judge Klein.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.