• Font Size    
Advertising
E-mail

Close Window E-mail This Page

Couple Who Used 'Land Grab' Law Talks To CBS4

Required fields are marked with an asterisk(*)



The information you provide will be used only to send the requested e-mail and will not be used to send any other e-mail communications. Read more in our Privacy Policy

Send E-mail

   Print     Share +    Comments

Couple Who Used 'Land Grab' Law Talks To CBS4

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) ― A Boulder couple who used a centuries-old law to take a portion of their neighbor's land defended their actions Monday.

Dick McLean, a former judge, and Edith Stevens, a former attorney, talked with CBS4 about the land dispute with Susie and Don Kirlin. Mclean and Stevens said they tried to compromise, but when they couldn't come up with one, they went to court.

"For us, this became basically a fence dispute," Stevens said.

The dispute centers on a neighboring lot with spectacular views that is owned by the Kirlins. McLean and Stevens used a little-known doctrine called Adverse Possession to take a third of the Kirlins' lot, claiming they had an ownership right because they had used it as their own for 25 years to gain access to their back yard. A judge agreed and gave it to them.

"No one objected to our continued use of those paths which we had used for 25 years," Stevens said. "We really wanted just to preserve our access to the west side of our property."

Ever since the judgment, the couple has been the focus of angry protesters, media coverage, and even promises of legislators to change the law.

McLean and Stevens insist they were only exercising their legal rights and tried to negotiate in good faith before it went to trial.

"The Kirlins were represented by a very competent lawyer, as were we," McLean said. "That's the way it turned out."

Susie Kirlin agreed that there were some initial talks, but she says McLean and Stevens wanted too much of their property and didn't want to pay market value for it.

"Well, I guess just because it is a law, does that make it okay to do that to someone?" Kirlin said.

The Kirlins have appealed the decision, which most think is a real long shot because the decision was based on a finding of fact at the trial court level. They will need to prove that the trial judge made an error applying the law.

(© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Add Comment

here. here. Need a log in? Register here
  •  * Will not be displayed with comment
  •  * e.g. (http://www.mywebsite.com)
  •  
  • Click here to refresh with new letters

Close Window Login


Close Window Flag Comment


loading...
You need the latest Flash player to view video content.
Click here to download.

Click here to bypass this detection if you already have the latest Flash Player.