"[Bob Greenlee] wrote about a rather disturbing adverse possession case affecting a portion of Don and Susie Kirlin's property that Judge James Klein gave to former district court Judge Dick McLean and Edie Stevens. I had no idea what a firestorm my describing this situation would stir up. I'm gratified that so many people were as disturbed by this ruling as I was...
The facts still seem pretty clear and undisputed: One neighbor [the McLean and Stevens, both lawyers] trespasses on a neighbor's [the Kirlins] property for over two decades and then claims they not only have a "right" to do so but sue the rightful owners of the trespassed property in order to actually claim it as theirs. Many attorneys apparently agree that the case will likely not be reversed if appealed.
It was then revealed that McClean and Stevens asked the court to award them court costs and attorney fees. I think this can be described as adding insult to injury. The whole thing is still hard to believe, although I have no reason to think there's some other motivation driving this matter.
One of the truly disturbing things about this situation is that it may bring further discredit to the courts and the legal profession. Sure, there's such a thing as adverse possession — and many people have pointed out it's a rather historic part of our common law heritage.
One can justify its existence because over the years various property boundaries involving thousands of acres of ranch and farmland may not have been properly surveyed, staked or adequately documented.
A fence here and there may have inadvertently gotten built where it shouldn't have been. An old barn or outbuilding might have inadvertently ended up a few feet off a boundary line. Things like this happen all the time. The essential difference is that many of those transgressions were largely inadvertent; not knowingly manipulated. It's rather apparent what happened in this case.
Whenever the courts and judicial decisions appears to extend beyond the boundaries of reasonable or justifiable behavior, it's a travesty if for no other reason than how such a perversion impacts a person's acceptance and respect of our legal system and its ability to render justice. Respect for the law is critical in a free society.
Whenever there are instances when common sense seems to be absent — particularly on the part of those of us who don't believe government always respects personal property rights — we become more suspicious if not somewhat paranoid.
When we read about government taking away a person's property by decree or by eminent domain or by adverse possession, some of us tend to get rather exercised.
In addition, when I wrote about this situation, I had no idea how often this seemingly benign application of the law has affected so many property owners in one way or another. Several people have shared their own stories that involved claims of adverse possession and purported government "taking" of their lands by questionable means, including the imposition of a variety of government mandates that don't allow certain things to happen because of claimed health, safety and welfare concerns.
The final chapter in this unfortunate situation has yet to be written."
There are lots of things in our society which are not illegal but surely are unethical and immoral. If I've had sex with former judge McLean's wife for the last 18 years without his knowledge it would not be entirely illegal but sure as hell is immoral and unethical. I hope that the old judge and his lawyer wife settle this adverse possession of their neighbors' land and return it to the rightful owners."
