Posted by crazy4cheese on June 11, 2008 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"How dare they look at my property!"

This is just childish.

Posted by musicgrinder on June 11, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why didn't the Salim's just PUT UP A FENCE ON THEIR SIDE of the property??? Sounds like the Salim's just don't want to pay for the fence.

Posted by jazzwoman53 on June 11, 2008 at 1:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But...I thought rich people were "entitled" to get what they want when they want it. That is why Old Lady Marshall bulldozed her fence...so she could encroach on the land around her.

Posted by kl53c on June 11, 2008 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jazzwoman: How is she "encroaching",she just wanted to see the creek. Her selfish, horrible neighbors however wanted their view of the creek as well, but demanded their privacy,not by putting up their own fence (which of course would cut off their creek view) but by forcing the neighbor to put a fence back up.
Salims, you are at least a bad as Dick and Edie.......... maybe worse.

Posted by tcrjunk on June 11, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again this application of adverse possession law does not make sense.

If I pay for and build a fence a few inches on my side of the property line, which is where I am required to build it by law and city permitting, and then leave it there for 18 years, I can no longer remove a structure that is on my property simply because my neighbors will lose their privacy?

Absurd. If the neighbor wants privacy and a fence, let them build one themselves, on their side of the property line. Don't claim a few inches of your neighbor's property and force them to rebuild a structure you want and they don't.

And Witwer should look into rewriting the law to exclude forcing people to have structures, such as fences, that they do not want. Fences are not permanent structures--the courts should not be permitted to make them permanent. What's next--debtor's prison for anyone too poor or too cheap to repair their fence when a chinook blows it down?

Posted by cawrigh on June 11, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

musicgrinder: "Why didn't the Salim's just PUT UP A FENCE ON THEIR SIDE of the property???"

That was my first thought too. The video explains why the Salims cannot legally build the fence on their side of the property line (it's a wetlands). Nevertheless the Salims knew or should have known when they bought their property that they couldn't build a fence on their side of the property, that they didn't own the fence, and that the fence owner could change or remove the fence at any time. Justice is on the side of Dana Marshall regardless of the law.

Does anyone know if the trial was a jury trial in this case? I think it would be a big mistake in this type of case to let a judge decide. Judges are trained to ignore justice by following the law as written while jurors can ignore unjust laws. Judging by the outcome of the case, my guess is that this case was not decided by a jury.

Chuck Wright
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Posted by elirenfro on June 11, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do these people ever try to work things out without going to court? And, if Salim really said he's not interested in the land, why did he take it? I'm sure they could have just put the fence back the way it was.

Maybe Marshalls should sell their remaining land to Jann Scott. That would be revenge enough on the Salims.

Posted by MicMacGirl on June 11, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People are so messed up. I guess they took her to court before the new law went into effect. Shady, evil, and just plain wrong.

And who the hell are they to say she must have a fence on her property?

Posted by freetibet on June 11, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Haven't the lessons of Tibet taught us anything? The new fence needs some "Free Tibet" bumper stickers on it!

Posted by Boulderelder on June 11, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"We see ourselves as the stewards of the land."

And of someone else's land as well.....nice neighborly thing to do....I wonder why these adverse possessors never bother to actually talk with their neigbors first? How they expect peace to be restored is beyond me.

Posted by oilburner on June 11, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fences have been "community" property for decades. Even without the Adverse Possession many courts would consider the "joint use" of a fence.

@Boulderelder: What about the woman who took down the fence? Why wouldn't she have talked to HER neighbors before taking down the fence? The polite neighborly thing to have done would be to talk to her neighbors prior to taking the fence down. Even if it is technically on her property, oftentimes neighbors pay together for a fence.

This case is NOT like the Kirlins in any way.

Posted by Boulderelder on June 11, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This case is NOT like the Kirlins in any way."

Adverse possession IS adverse possession.

Posted by redman78 on June 11, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The way I heard it, they COULDN'T put up a new fence because the City won't allow you to build within 15 ft or stream as it's a wetlands, so what choice do you have after living there for 30 years when a new neighbor decided what's been there for 30 years should come down and you can't put it back up...

Posted by ben on June 11, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I disagree with them, the Salims should have been represented in that video. I would have liked to have seen it from their yard and heard their story. Perhaps they didn't want to be interviewed? Perhaps because they know they are wrong to try and tell her how to landscape her yard.

Posted by BlindLemonFishStix on June 11, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People in Boulder are not neighborly so how can you expect them to respect each other at all. Being a neighbor and acting like one are completely different. People in this city don't have any respect for anyone but themselves, and they are willing to start a war over a couple of inches of dirt.

The fence was on her property so she should be able to do anything she wants to it. Maybe she should put it partially back up and paint it orange on the back side to match the new signs.

Posted by respectsnothing on June 11, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It makes sense that the land stay in harmony," Salim said. "We see ourselves as the stewards of the land."

How is having a fence staying in harmony? IMHO a fence disrupts harmony. Stewards of land allow others to admire the land as well and it's not hidden by fences.

Posted by Honor_And_Integrity on June 11, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is very simple. Dana Marshall owns the land, owns the fence and has every right to do with it as she pleases. The neighbors knew the fence never belonged to them and that the rightful property owner was entitled to remove it whenever they saw fit. When did the judicial system in Boulder lose perspective on the importance of property rights. The Colorado Legislature and Governor Ritter have changed the adverse possession law, so as to prevent situations such as this, from happening in the future.

The situation that the Boulder Judicial system has created forces every resident of Boulder County to be suspicious of their neighbors and disallow what previously had been looked upon as neighborly sharing of one's property.

In November, Lael Montgomery, the judge who just decided this case and James C. Klien, the judge for the Kirlin's case, both come up for retention in the election. It's time that the people send the message to the Boulder Judicial system that property right's and the protection of property ownership are a foundation of our society and therefore MUST be protected.

Posted by CameraLogin on June 11, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steward? From the old English "steigwarde" or keeper of pig stys.

Posted by bldrgrl23 on June 11, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again the Daily Camera manages to miss all of the facts. This case is the type of adverse possession that shows why the law is worthwhile. How would you feel if your neighbor decided to take down the fence between your two properties, without a word, just because she wanted to look into your yard? Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the fence is in fact the Salim's in the first place? Sounds like Marshall's telling some tall tales to me.

Posted by bldrgrl23 on June 11, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

See quote:
"Adverse possession can be used in very limited circumstances to settle legitimate boundary disputes," Witwer said. "If I legitimately think, 'That's my land,' and over the course of decades I improve it or maybe put a structure on it, that's a different situation."

Sounds like Marshall is in the wrong, as the judge ruled.

Posted by margaret on June 11, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a rediculous ruling that once again calls into question Boulder's judges.

The neighbors know that it isn't their fence and want to force their neighbor to put it back up anyway? Because they've invented a "right to privacy" in their back yard that occurs no where in the US or Colorado constitution? This is crazy.

If my fences weren't jointly owned, I'd take them down in protest.

Posted by spankymcgee on June 11, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not sit down with your neighbor and discuss the issue? Bring in an arbitrator. Why steal someone else's land just because you can? It is bad karma and will come back to haunt.

Posted by joshua.lawton on June 11, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: ben on June 11, 2008 at 8:39 a.m.

The Salims were offered a chance to share their side of the issue on camera, but declined for various reasons.

Joshua Lawton
Camera Photojournalist

Posted by spankymcgee on June 11, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The neighbors argue that the fence built in a certain amount of privacy between their respective lots, and that they had jointly helped maintain the 50-year-old barrier."

How much work is it to maintain a $#@&@^$ fence? I haven't touched mine in 10 years.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All you hyperbolic venters, how about reading the order (PDF at the top of the page) before de-spleening yourselves? The fence had been there for 46 years as a division of the three properties. The new owner, Dana Marshall, bought the property in August, 2006, had it surveyed, discovered the fence was a few inches inside her property, and had it removed September 9 without a howdy-do with her neighbors. Address the facts; this is not hardscrabble.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

spanky: "How much work is it to maintain a $#@&@^$ fence? I haven't touched mine in 10 years."

My, aren't you special? Read the order.

Posted by boardman on June 11, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, now does it mean the converse is true, too?

If I want to build a new fence, on my own land of course,where one has never been, but my neighbor has been enjoying his view of my yard for 17 years then I can't because he now own that "view" into my yard?

This is all so stupid. It's like we are all suddenly weeded to forever preserving the status quo and our own self-interests.

Posted by fbog on June 11, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What really puzzles me is that there is a fence in Boulder that hasn't blown down in 50 years.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...I can't because he now own that "view" into my yard?"

That's a non-sequitur and you are embarrassing yourself. Read the order: it's in plain English and lays out the issues and the law very well.

Posted by cjonescu on June 11, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Read the Judge's Order for Pete's sake! This is clearly an appropriate ruling and application of the adverse possession law. Ms. Marshall was unfortunately led to believe that the fence belonged to her by her realtor, when in fact it rightfully belonged to the Salim's. She ignorantly removed a fence that did not belong to her and should therefore be required to replace it.

Posted by bldrgrl23 on June 11, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

flaven's got it right - read the order. Don't make the mistake Mr. Urie made in believing all of Marshall's falsehoods. The fence was never hers.

Posted by fezmen on June 11, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Normally I would not waste my time with one of these forums, but since I was actually involved with this case I felt obliged to comment.

First the Facts:
The fence was not built by the original residents of the Marshal Property, it was built by the original owners of the Salim property. This fact is confirmed by neighbors who helped build the fence. Additionally, this would be painfully obvious to anyone who had ever seen the Salim property from the inside of the yard: the fence is the same all the way around the Salim's yard, including the edge of the fence which borders the street.

Secondly, it was unclear that the property under question ever belonged to Dana Marshal. The survey claimed that the fence was six inches inside the Marshal property, but the surveyor will tell you that the absolute precision of a survey line will not be more accurate than 1 foot. (Read this as: if the survey was repeated independently, it is entirely possible that the property line would have been six inches to the other side of the fence)

Next, it is accurate that the Salim's could not rebuild their fence because it is in the wetlands.

The lawsuit was between the Angerers and the Salims vs Marshal. Ann Tagawa was not involved and has not lost or gained any property.

Finally, the fence was maintained by the Salim family for the last 26 years. If the Marshals or the previous owners of that property really believed that they owned that fence, they sure didn't show it.

Now an opinion:
Dana Marshal went out to her yard and chopped down a fence between her yard and the Salim's, reportedly under the assumption that she owned the property. Now if she did own the fence, while that would be within her rights, doing so without first consulting the neighbors is just downright impolite. I know it is not a strong legal point, but there seems to be some fairly strong vilification of the Salim family in this case so I'd like to shed some light on the other side.

Because of wetlands regulations, the Salims are not allowed to rebuild the fence on their side of the property. The next defining boundary between the marshal property and the Salim residence is the creek. So over time the property boundary between the Salims and the Marshals could shift to the creek (under the same law), making half of the Salim's property vulnerable. Now are the Salim's trying to steal the Marshal's property or protect their own?

The objection to this case is over the validity of adverse possession, which basically objects to the government's right to dictate the ownership and treatment of private property. That being said, if you object to the city granting the rights to the property under the adverse possession law, you must also object to the city prohibiting the Salims from rebuilding a fence on their property (wetlands or not).

Posted by teddy on June 11, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What if everybody in Boulder sent their neighbors a letter stating that you are given revocable permission to use my land to the extent your are currently using it?

This would eliminate any "adverse and hostile" use.

Then, no one would be able to claim adverse possession.

Posted by thelastliberal on June 11, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Where have all the liberals gone?

All Boulder judges should start looking for new jobs ASAP....

...no, wait...why do you just file your own adverse possesion case against your neighbor's million dollar property and retire.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, and stealing is stealing.

Get your act together, Boulder.

Once again I'm ashamed to be a Boulderite today. And anyone who thinks anybody has a right to someone else's property for any reason whatsoever should be ashamed of themselves also.

Where did all of you self-righteous spoiled grown-ups grow up?

Posted by numcwrt2 on June 11, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Being the spiteful dude that I am, if eventually made to put a fence back up, I would paint the side facing the Salim's the most obnoxious color McGuckins could mix.
Gotta love Boulder, our judicial system cares more about not offending someone versus degrading one of our inalienable rights to property.

Posted by whvacman on June 11, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hatfields and Mc Coy's 2008 yeeeehhhaaaawwwww

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Soylent: “O.K., I've read the pdf…”

Read it again and pay attention. The fence was built and maintained for over four decades based on known property lines and acquiescence of those property divisions. No more, no less. You’re getting worked up in a lather over nothing. The fence goes back up where it was before, and nothing has changed except a legal description. Re-read fezmen’s post, while you’re at it.

And, your personal attacks toward me are amusing. Keep them up, jeffm.

Posted by tamarie on June 11, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i'm not sure if this suggestion has been made, but maybe this could be solved by planting something that would provide privacy and create a border - bamboo perhaps? can things be planted in wetland areas?

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffm, read the order -- specifically page 5, para 2, last sentence.

I don't know what's more irritating: that you expect me to do your footwork for you, or that I end up doing it. Must be a soft spot in my heart that you appeal to...

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"How about you put up your own fence ON YOUR OWN LAND and shut up!!!"

How about you educate yourself, before you react so superficially?

Posted by oilburner on June 11, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Billy Goat - you've got it absolutely spot on.

For all of you up in arms about this, do you not remember the most salient point of the Kirlin case? EVEN THEY AGREED THEY HAD TO GIVE UP SOME PROPERTY TO THE McSTEVENS!!!! Their compromise was 6 ft(?) of the land where the firewood was! So even THEY understood that that aspect of the law was correct and offered to give it up. So before you slam the Salims over a few questionable inches on a 4 decade old fence, remember that.

Including your neighbors in your plans, whether you "need to" or not fosters trust and usually stops issues before they get too big. If you ultimately do not meet eye-to-eye, at least you tried, and they won't be surprised if you go ahead. It could have mitigated thousands in legal bills.

So for her unilateral "I live in a bubble" decision, she now has two sets of legal bills to pay for and a fence to rebuild (literally if not figuratively).

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another distinction: the McStevens knew they were trespassing on land that was not theirs; in this issue, the fence was acquiesced as the property division for over four decades.

Posted by johnbarleycorn on June 11, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope they put all kinds of offensive sayings on the Salim side of the fence--make it look worse than no fence at all. What jerks those people are. Amazing how easy it is to steal someone's land.

Posted by timitron on June 11, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So just put the fence back up, but paint it day-glo orange with green polka dots on the side that faces the adverse possessors. Paint the other side beige.

Posted by geneloehrlein on June 11, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I still don't understand if I am paying taxes on a piece of land how another person can take it leagally away from me. Can I sue them to pay me for the taxes I paid on that piece of property?

Posted by cowdog on June 11, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this a joke? Some how Colorado law allows "neighbors" to take property because someone took down a fence to improve the view? Eww, they looked at our yard - someone must compensate us!!

This is beyond bizarre. I can't wait to see everyone in Boulder putting up 10 foot fences around every inch of their property to protect their rights. Good luck with that ...

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I still don't understand if I am paying taxes on a piece of land how another person can take it leagally away from me. "

Start by reading the order and not knee-jerking to the froth.

"Some how Colorado law allows "neighbors" to take property because someone took down a fence to improve the view?"

Start by reading the order and not knee-jerking to the froth.

Posted by alpnclymber on June 11, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, that PDF spells it out quite clearly. Dana Marshall is 100% wrong and owes the Salims a new fence and a huge apology. The DC is also guilty of sloppy reporting.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffm: "...whose already ruled that "views" are a protected right then how come the Marshall's can't marshal that defense?"

Sigh. Read the order.

"However, since Flav's the de facto final word on this..."

You'll note, if you're paying a modicum of attention, that I have not taken a position. I've only encouraged the ill-informed to read and attempt to comprehend the order before embarrassing themselves. I've apparently been only marginally successful.

Posted by SickNTired on June 11, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about a chainlink fence?

Posted by doug on June 11, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The entire point of adverse possession is that the land someone thinks is theirs actually isn't. All a court does is codify it officially. The court doesn't take anything away from someone else.

After a certain amount of time, a fence by law becomes the property line, no matter what the tax records or surveyor records say.

Three cheers for the Salims for standing up for their rights, I say. The law of adverse possession isn't the problem. Marshall didn't have the right to act unilaterally. It is precisely her (and that of many posters here) unfounded notion that property rights are inalienable or absolute that caused the problem in the first place.

God save us from the ignorance of those who post on these forums. It's downright depressing.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"How about a chainlink fence?"

Read the order.

Posted by cowdog on June 11, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read the story. That's all I have to go on. In this case if one neighbor can force another to put up a fence, that's absurd. Property rights are fundamental in this country, esp. the American West. But the idea that visual "access" is infringement and an aspect of a "property right" than can be used to force someone else to put up a fence is not an American property value. Sorry.

From what I can tell, this case is simply an extreme that violates the spirit of property rights and neighbor. Bad move that will result in unfortunate but deserved PR for some, at best.

Posted by BlindLemonFishStix on June 11, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about an electrified concentration camp fence with razor wire and a sentry tower?

Posted by chicago on June 11, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Timitron got it right - the guy's belief that he is legally entitled to his view is mistaken. If the lady puts up a new fence, she can paint whatever she wants on it.

Posted by moeckel on June 11, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I read the story. That's all I have to go on."

The order is right there. Relying on a newspaper story instead of the readily available source, while perhaps faster or more convenient, is a bad way to get the actual facts. Save the outrage until you read the order- it's not that long to read, has a bit of humor in it, and seems very reasonable.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jeffm: "That's your idea of 'encouragement'?"

Yep. Refer to "I read the story. That's all I have to go on." -- when the link to the order is the first line above.

When the chest-beating and pitch-forks and pitch-soaked brands come out and the mob surges angrily forward without clue or decorum, a simple direction to "read the order" (I never said, BTW, "read the article", so probably need to repeat for you -- again -- read the order) is appropriate, though probably futile for some denizens of this page.

Posted by geneloehrlein on June 11, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Love thy neighbor but, don't tear down the hedge. ;^)

Posted by SirRealism on June 11, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As Robert Frost said,

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Posted by Dick_Tater on June 11, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't see the similarity to the Kirlins. They only asked for the amount of land required to put the fence back up. Unlike the Kirlins whose lot was rendered useles because they lost 1/3 of it.

As I read the last line...

Marshall has been ordered to cover the costs of putting the fence back up, but until that happens, she'll have to look out not at the picturesque creek running through her neighbors' backyards, but at the three fluorescent-orange "no trespassing" signs tacked onto the trees a few inches from the new property line.

Sounds like the creek runs through the neighbors property, not hers. She is trying to use the view the neighbors paid good money for to increase the value of her property. If my neighbors ( who have a dead and unlandscaped back yard with trash strewn about ) decided to take down the fence between us so that they could view my beautifully landscaped yard, I would not be happy either. They could also have the ability to start trespassing on my property. If they do this long enough, the courts may award them my land. Sadly, fences make good neighbors.

Posted by whvacman on June 11, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If she can paint her new fence if she put's up another ? Heck invite taggers and gang's over for lemonade give em some paint show them salim 's side and have a wonderful afternoon !! But then again "I love the look of razor wire in the morning"!!!

Posted by itshercandy on June 11, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read over the order and I must say I agree with the Plaintiffs. Donna Marshall should not have removed the fence. It should be restored. I can't help but feel sympathy for Salim's plight. My gosh, what if my neighbor took down our mutual fence because he wanted to look at my pretty yard? The thought makes me shudder in horror.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Heck invite taggers and gang's over for lemonade give em some paint show them salim 's side and have a wonderful afternoon !!"

Good grief. Some people are just too cute for words. Read the order.

Posted by xyz on June 11, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DC:
Could you please be more careful about reporting on hot topics? Especially when our neighbors reputations are at stake?

Thanks!

Posted by johnbarleycorn on June 11, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read the ruling. So what if he helped repair the fence? The important part that I can't determine is whether the fence was on his property or hers. If his then he has every right to demand it be restored, but if on hers then I think she had the right to dismantle it. If I fix up my neighbor's car it doesn't mean I now own it.

Posted by memailme on June 11, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Laws like this make it painfully clear that you need to take the time to know what you’re buying, that you need to dissect deeds, boundaries, surveys etc in advance to know what red flags might come up. In the excitement of finding your dream home, we are all to willing to over look things that might come up and I for one never think the worst of people therefore I usually miss the worst case scenario stuff.

We had a neighbor who built an addition to his wharf which he used for lobster fishing. His was parallel to our own wharf. He did so in such a way that it cut us off from access to the shore on our own land. Attempts at legal intervention were ridiculous and expensive so eventually my father just walked over, talked to the guy and bought the little piece from him despite the fact that there was proof that it belonged to our neighbor. The handshake between the two of them meant that we are still friends today.

Later, the same building but a different neighbor had an issue. The building was built on the same wharf. The piece of the property in dispute was the corner of a shed that had been added onto the original building about 10 years after the original building was built. It has existed as is for the last 75 years.

Since she shed wasn't built on land but sat on the wharf itself, this small piece of the shed jutted by about 8 inches into the airspace that was, in theory in with in the boundary of our neighbors. We'd owned it since 1975 and the neighbors bought their property around 1998. Three generations of people just lived with it the way it was because NO ONE CARED (if they even knew) and were way to busy trying to live productive lives in a small rural fishing village. Everyone was like family.

What could you do about it? You can't cut off a corner of the building to suit the boundary! In this case too, agreements were made to redraw the boundary and in exchange we deeded additional land to him. Too much in my opinion but it made the issue go away and we are friendly still.

People don't go far enough to try to compromise and be neighborly. Watching the video and seeing the pictures it appears that the foliage and ground plants seem to provide a lot of privacy for the Salims. How hard would it be to suggest that as a compromise, Marshall could plant some trees or shrubs in a way thatwould sheild the Salims view from having to look at her manicured yard. (what a hardship) Why wouldn't the Salims WANT others to enjoy the views of the creek too?

"Everything was very friendly," Mohammad Salim said. "It's not harmonious anymore. Maybe putting the fence back up will help to restore some of that."

This statement defies logic and is very telling about the Salims as neighbors. This is stupid and sad all at once.

Posted by oilburner on June 11, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

johnbarleycorn,

If your car sat for 6 months in your way and required upkeep, moving, maintenance, you could indeed file for a salvage title and then own the car. So actually, that is even more attractive than the 4 decades these folks waited for a fence.

Right or wrong, I'm on the Kirlin's side with regards to A/P as I think the interpretation of the law was questionable (my opinion) in that particular case. But A/P is a very important law and this is a perfect example. If you haven't read the order, don't rely on the D/C editorialized version for your facts. You are demonizing people who have spent years with upkeep and maintenance. As Doug said (who knows much more about this stuff than I), the land was NOT hers when she paid for it, and the courts proved the case.

Posted by moeckel on June 11, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I read the ruling. So what if he helped repair the fence? The important part that I can't determine is whether the fence was on his property or hers. If his then he has every right to demand it be restored, but if on hers then I think she had the right to dismantle it. If I fix up my neighbor's car it doesn't mean I now own it."

This is the whole point of adverse possession. If you spend a couple of decades maintaining a car, you're the only one that drives it, everyone believes it's yours, and someone takes it claiming to be the technical owner, you'd be pissed.

Posted by memailme on June 11, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction to my post above..from the second paragraph, second to last sentance.

"Attempts at legal intervention were ridiculous and expensive so eventually my father just walked over, talked to the guy and bought the little piece from him despite the fact that there was **** NO**** proof that it belonged to our neighbor."

Posted by Pogue009 on June 11, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BOULDER NIMBY: Now It's My BackYard

Posted by oilburner on June 11, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

memailme,

You have good advice in there, but then contradict yourself. I agree, research research research. Had she done that prior to purchase, she would have no doubt found out that at the very least the fence had been there a long time and probably would be deeded to the other owners.

As for "compromise", that sounds like a 1-sided deal. "no fence or you are a bad neighbor". That is not giving much slack to the Salims who may enjoy the yard they have had for 26 years with the fence.

Education and compromise would have been for Marshall to have researched the law, figured that the fence was the property line now and offered, like you described, an offer with the Salims. If they were reluctant to budge, then don't buy the house. She does NOT own the view of that creek if they own the fence, and they do.

Posted by oilburner on June 11, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People - this isn't a Boulder law or a Colorado law. Every state to my knowledge has a version of this. Some states have it for a little as 7 years (FL, WI, TN, CT, others), so the 17 that Colorado has is already a huge hurdle to overcome.

You can blame Boulder, or the state, but it only demonstrates that you do not understand a very important landowner-rights law. It isn't as simple as someone saying "this is yours" and you exist in a vacuum. It sounds like Marshall was poorly served by her real-estate agent, and misunderstood the survey. Too bad.

Posted by bldrgrl23 on June 11, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had almost completely lost my faith in Boulderites...but it's refreshing to see that despite the initial knee jerk reactionary nonsense some people took the time to read the order and understand that the Salim's are clearly the wronged party.
No one ever wants to pain and expense of going to court - I suspect that, particularly given the city's extreme wetland laws, the Salim's were given little choice in the matter.

Posted by clackmon on June 11, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i would assume that the realtor involved would be the next person pulled into this legal barn dance. wouldn't surprise me if (s)he were found liable for the misinformation given to his/her client. not saying its fair, but i have seen lawsuits initiated over statements made by realtors that ended up being untrue.

i don't know much about the limitations of building fence in or around wetlands (the only evidence i have of such limitations is the blurb in the video) but i find it odd that the Salim's fence seems to completely encompass a portion of the creek...so how is it ok to build a fence on one side of the creek but not the other? and how can someone build fence ACROSS this creek without violating some wetland regulations?

whatever, this whole thing is just sad to me...these people should be grateful they live in such beautiful homes and have the privacy they do. most don't have half of what they do. this petty squabbling is only possible when there is a sense of entitlement and a lot of free time. yep, that's boulder.

Posted by backrange on June 11, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When my home was new, 10 yrs ago, I needed to fence in the yard (2 dogs kinda requires it). I contacted the 2 adjoining neighbors and asked if they'd be willing to share the cost. Both neighbors declined, saying they'd prefer no fence.

I had the fence installed 6 inches inside the lot lines so I'd be within my rights to install the fence. But, I also researched and discovered that, in time, the fence would become the new de facto lot line.

That was OK with me. I was willing to give 6 inches for a good cause. Still am.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...but i find it odd that the Salim's fence seems to completely encompass a portion of the creek...so how is it ok to build a fence on one side of the creek but not the other?"

Read the order: this fence has been there for over __four__ decades. It likely predates whatever wetland regs you imagine exist currently.

Posted by s4burf on June 11, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there's probably a naked priest running around back there.

Posted by cawrigh on June 11, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read the judge's ruling. I think the judge ruled as required by law. I've no criticism of the judge. The problem is with the law.

How long the fence has been there, who built the fence, who maintained the fence and how often they maintained the fence in my opinion should be totally irrelevant unless surveyors can't agree on whose property the fence sits on. In a case like this, the defense and plaintiff should each present their survey evidence and professional surveyor's testimony. If it's not clear to the judge or jury whose property the fence sits on based on conflicting surveys or conflicting surveyor testimony, then they can resort to how long the fence has been there, who built the fence, who maintained the fence and how often they maintained the fence to clear up any ambiguity.

In my opinion if the survey evidence is stronger for the fence sitting on Marshall's land, justice dictates that she should have prevailed regardless of what the history of the fence is. To bad the law (both the old version and the new version that takes effect July 1, 2008) is different from what justice is.

Chuck Wright
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Posted by backrange on June 11, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

same - it's not nice to brag.

hatmonger - cause it's only 6 inches. Who cares? And, despite my neighbors not wanting to share in the cost, I ignored those wishes, built a fence, and still became friends with them.

Life is more enjoyable when you make friends instead of posting "NO TRESPASSING" signs.

Posted by clackmon on June 11, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Read the order: this fence has been there for over __four__ decades. It likely predates whatever wetland regs you imagine exist currently."

YOU read the order since you think its some magical document that contains all pertinent information on everything anyone could ever want to know about this dispute.

i read it. nope, nothing in there about wetlands. not a word.

and btw it isn't something people 'imagine exists currently'...unless Marshall is totally making that up. as i said, the video is all i have to go on.

why am i even responding to you anyway? its a gorgeous day and i am going out to play. you should do the same, you have been at this for 8+ hours today.

READ THE ORDER! lol

Posted by eastdakota on June 11, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah yet another example of the horrible reporting done by the Camera. Did the reporter read the ruling? Is the reporter related or otherwise involved with the defendants in this case, or was it just a slow news day and he felt like sensationalizing the case (with no thought to besmirching the reputation of a long-time Boulder family)? You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Urie, as should all you people who rushed to judgment on the authority of a Daily Camera article without ever pursuing the facts that are linked directly to the article. Six inches of contested land for a privacy fence does not a land-grab case make.

Posted by fezmen on June 11, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to chime back in:
johnbarleycorn: The whole point is that it was unclear where the property boundary was or should be, thus it was unclear who owned the land that the fence was on. (It was in fact fairly clear who owned the fence.)

Memailme: There were in fact attempts to settle this matter without taking it to court. Unfortunately Dana Marshal was not willing to negotiate over the property, and the Salim family were forced to escalate the battle to protect their property. The pictures are misleading: The Marshal's view without the fence looks not only at the creek, but directly into the master bedroom of the Salim house. Frankly, would you want someone to be able to look into your bedroom from their living room. Also, why would the Salims be inclined to share access to their property with the type of woman who would cut down a fence between their yards without consulting them first?

Also, regarding your statement about Mohammad Salim's comment: What he means is that the neighborhood was peaceful and happy until Dana Marshal decided to tear up his fence. Now everyone in the neighborhood who understands the full details of the case are very polarized against a single member (Marshal) of the local community.

oilburner (and others): I happen to know that Mrs Marshal had the previous owner of the house sign an affidavit (written by her daughter, a lawyer) proclaiming that he believed the property to be his, and that she paid for extra title insurance which would cover the costs of any legal battle over the property. I expect that she fully understood what she was getting herself into, expected a legal battle, and didn't manage to get away with it.

Thank you to those of you who have read the ruling and understand the details of the situation beyond the daily camera's poor and inaccurate representation of the story.

Posted by johnbarleycorn on June 11, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the bottom line is that the Salims were pretty much the sole caretakers of the fence until Marshall ripped it down and that it wasn't clear whose property the fence was on in the first place? I realize the law allows the Salims to take the land because of adverse posession, and would not fault the judge for ruling the way he did, but I do think it's a bad law when someone can take someone else's property. Just seems like a bad law.

Posted by fezmen on June 11, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JBC: But in this case it was disputed property. The ownership was unclear because the survey cannot be done to the precision that the circumstances required. The land that was "grabbed" as the camera so indelicately puts it was not obviously Dana Marshal's property to be claimed.

Posted by respectsnothing on June 11, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

flaven,

i read the order, but i don't see where the document ordered YOU to be the "embarassing" police officer of the comment board.

if people choose to embarass themselves that is their choice, just like it's your choice to consistently comment about it. besides, how does it effect your life anyways? it's just a comment board.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...but i don't see where the document ordered YOU to be the "embarassing" police officer ..."

You're absolutely correct. And your straw man point is?

Posted by FormerBuff77 on June 11, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before any additional mean spirited assumptions are made about the Salims, please know they are very kind, easy going people who would not go to court unless there was no alternative. They both donate a lot of their time to make our community a better place to live and don't deserve the negative comments that are being said about them.

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

same: "Ditto. Make it eight, in my case."

I have it on good authority you're exaggerating by a third, at least...<G>

Posted by respectsnothing on June 11, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by flaven on June 11, 2008 at 7:31 p.m.

You're absolutely correct. And your straw man point is?

That YOU are a straw man And I am absolutely correct on that point.

Posted by spankymcgee on June 11, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I was willing to give 6 inches for a good cause. Still am."

Ditto. Make it eight, in my case.

LOL. You guys are killing me.

Posted by Pogue009 on June 11, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Same wins this round and the DC's unbelievably poor reporting loses.

100,000,000 points to Same

Posted by rayq on June 12, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see many gray areas in this case and don't know who is right or wrong unlike the kirlin case with the landgrabbers in the wrong.

Posted by bldr08 on June 12, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before you condemn the Salim’s and Angerer’s for fighting for their property rights and privacy, you might want to research Dana Marshall’s history of property ownership over the last 10 years. This research may provide you with enough information to consider her true motives for taking down the fence.

Doing a simple “people search” on the internet you can discover that Dana Marshall, her sons Zachery Marshall and Roan Marshall have owned more than 10 properties since 2001. These properties have been located on Maui, in Oregon , and Colorado . They currently own 3 properties in Boulder .

Posted by sadforboulder on June 12, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I am repeating anything previously said in the 90+ comments, please forgive me.

My first question, regarding this story, is how can a judge legally determine the believability of a witness’ statement based on their body language? If you read the judge’s decision, Judge Montgomery found it “remarkable” that Mr. Sherman’s hand was shaking, and that he covered his mouth while testifying – remarkable enough that she ruled that “The court does not believe (what Mr. Sherman was saying) was a truthful statement”. Mr. Sherman had sworn to tell the truth, as he knew it, prior to taking the stand. Just because he was nervous while testifying in an intimidating environment of a courtroom, he should not have been believed?

I hope I never have to testify under oath in a trial where I am a key witness. I would be shaking like a leaf – which I guess means that whatever I said should not to be believed. I would rather testify to a jury of my peers, who would hopefully understand how nervous I was, and instead listen to what I had to say. Then make a decision based on my words, not my body language.

My second question is how can a judge possibly rule on a case without seeing the homes and the section of land in dispute? I have been in Ms. Marshall’s back yard, and you get a much better understanding of the entire situation. You can’t even see the Salim’s back yard from Ms. Marshall’s deck. Just looking at photos in a courtroom (and I saw the photos) does not really tell the story.

And, finally, if Mr. Salim wants “the land to stay in harmony”, then he should take down the 3 bright orange “No Trespassing” signs he put up facing Ms. Marshall’s house after winning the case. That was such a non harmonious, non gracious, stick it in Ms. Marshall’s face, thing to do. He should also remove the ugly yellow tree mulching machine that he placed on the property line, in sight of Ms Marshall’s house At least that would be one neighborly step in the right direction.

Posted by flaven on June 12, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"My first question, regarding this story, is how can a judge legally determine the believability of a witness’ statement based on their body language?"

The judge never made such a legal determination; the body language observation was made in context (re-read the order, this time carefully). The judge used body-language observations in context with both plaintiff and defendant.

"You can’t even see the Salim’s back yard from Ms. Marshall’s deck."

Paraphrasing Dana Marshall, "The Salim's wooded yard with its little creek was lovely, and she wanted to look at it." (page 8 of the order) -- no where was Ms. Marshall's deck a mentioned factor. I suppose you could also say that you can't even see the Salim's back yard from Broadway and be just as relevant.

The capper is, though nothing can be seen from Ms. Marshall's "deck", apparently the 'No Trespassing' signs and mulching machine in the Salim's yard are eyesores...hmmmm...

Posted by flaven on June 12, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Please vote no to retain judge Lael Montgomery and judge Klien."

Get a life: you pop up here and there throughout the various comments sections with the same slogan, no argument, and with all the relevance of a automatonic fortune cookie.

Posted by sadforboulder on June 12, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flaven - Are you saying that Judge Montgomery was fair because she based her decision on body language of both the platiff and the defendent? What if one witness is a good actor, and the other is a bad actor - does that mean justice is served just because one is better at acting while under oath? My point was that body language should not be used to decide a case. The court reporter, fortunately, is not recording body language. I do believe there is a reason for that.

You also missed my point on question #2. I thought Judge Montgomery should have viewed the property with her own eyes. When you are entrusted to make a decision of this kind, it would seem prudent for the Judge to visit the location. The Judge could then see for herself the view from the deck, the yard, and inside the home of Ms. Marshall, the Salims and the Angerers. Judge Montgomery would also have been able to view the old fence, and see how it would have been impossible for anyone to maintain Ms. Marshall's fence without trespassing into her yard. Plus, she could have viewed the condition of the fence when it was removed. The fence (which I have seen) is falling apart and shows absolutely no signs of maintenance.

The "No Trespassing" signs are visible from Ms. Marshall's deck and back yard because they were also posted by the the other plantiffs - the Angerers. They extend all the way across her back yard.

Which, I guess, brings me to another question I'm sure you will answer. Where are the comments from the other plantiffs - the Angerers? Why, when they gained much more of Ms. Marshall's property (which you would know if you have actually seen the property), are they not quoted or included in this entire fiasco?

Perhaps you should go see the property yourself (as I have) prior to making any more comments. Ms. Marshall is a very nice person. Why don't you go meet her, see the situation, and then come to your own conclusion. I do believe you will feel differently if you see it with your own eyes. It is easy to make judgements when you don't have first hand knowledge of the situation.

There are so many other details that Ms. Marshall's attorneys, for reasons unknown to people familiar with the case, did not come out in the trial. Perhaps they will come out in the appeal, assuming the attorneys assigned to Ms. Marshall by the title company do a more thorough job. I am astounded by how poorly Ms. Marshall's attorneys represented her in this case.

Posted by DavisA on June 12, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bldr08: Uugh? So what. What's your point?

Posted by sadforboulder on June 12, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flaven – I decided to go to the beginning and read all of the comments you have made concerning this issue. All you seem to say, to those who disagree with the outcome of this case, is to re-read the order.

Can’t you see that some of us don’t feel that justice was served by this order? Re-reading the order does not prevent us from stating opinions or making observations that disagree with the order. As I said in my previous post, there are many facts that did not come out in court. Hopefully, they will come out in the appeal. Stayed tuned…

Posted by flaven on June 12, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It is easy to make judgements when you don't have first hand knowledge of the situation."

I'm not making judgments: it's all in the order. Plaintiffs and defendants made their best case. If Ms. Marshall appeals, fine. But, per the order, she failed to make a sufficient case on several points. If you want to keep trying the issue with armchair retrospection, ala the mysterious shooter on the knoll, that's your right. But claiming should haves and would haves after the case was decided is weak and hardly meritorious. On the appearance, this is not a huge issue: the fence was regarded for over four decades, by acquiescence, as the property division by all the longterm landowners affected. Ms. Marshall buys the lot and a month later, or less, tears it down. This is exactly the situation where AP is appropriate and the application finely decided. Of course your apparent acquaintance will feel aggrieved; but, she has lost nothing but the view and ready access she didn't own in the first place.

Your best council is to help her move on.

Posted by flaven on June 12, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Re-reading the order does not prevent us from stating opinions or making observations that disagree with the order."

Many of the knee-jerk reactions were from folks who had (in some cases, admittedly) not even bothered to read the order. That's like driving up to the Conoco and filling the Prius from the green hose. Of course you can state whatever opinion you want, but at least keep it relevant to the issue at hand, or it is just so much noise.

"As I said in my previous post, there are many facts that did not come out in court."

Frankly, that's tough sh*t. Prisons are full of felons who are really, really innocent. Your client (ummmm...friend, relative?) apparently had ample opportunity to dissuade the judge from acknowledging that for over four decades that fence was acquiesced by all neighbors as the property division. If you don't like AP, change it. But, in this instance AP served its purpose to resolve a property line dispute. Ms. Marshall lost little more than her pride of losing: the fence goes back up in the same spot, she has pretty much exactly the same yard she had when she speculated on the property.

Live and move on.

Posted by sadforboulder on June 13, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Flaven - Obviously, you are an attorney - one I hope is on my side if I ever need to go to court. I am not an attorney. Maybe you could offer to take the case pro bono for Ms. Marshall's appeal? All I am saying, IMHO, her attorneys did not do their job.

Anyway, you win - you are right - we are all wrong. That is obviously what you want to hear.

Why don't you take your own advice and "Live and move on"? :) It is good advice - I am going to take it myself!

Posted by rayq on June 13, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I saw the latest video (June 13) and the landgrabbers are downright disagreeable people.
I suggest we throw our support behind Dana Marshall on this one, afterall the fence was on her property.

Posted by Pogue009 on June 13, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If flaven is an attorney he/she/it ought to be disbarred for billing while posting

Posted by flaven on June 13, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Obviously, you are an attorney..."

I'd rather squeeze lemon juice in my eyes. Actually, I'm a wealthy trust-funder with a bid in on the glass house, so I'm moving on.

Posted by robocop on June 14, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The back side of the fence faced the adverse possessors. The finished side faced the true owners. The most common fence repair is replacing the slats, which must be done from the finished side (unless you have 6 foot long arms... Mr. Salim?). Never in 25 years did you have to replace slats? Oh, but you replaced all of the posts and most of the rails. How do you do that without disturbing the slats? And how is it that the Angerers admitted that they’d never done any repairs or maintenance to the fence, but got awarded one fourth of the land and fence anyway? Also, it is not “just a few inches”. It is approximately a foot and a half when you include the width of the fence. Everyone knows that figures don’t lie, but liars can figure...