Bill Summary for Bill Number HB08-1148

Date: 03/12/2008

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB08-1148

SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Moved Amendment L.009 (Attachment D). The motion Moved Amendment L.010 (Attachment E). The motion Moved to refer, as amended, HB 08-1148 to the Comm	Pass Without Objection Pass Without Objection PASS

01:57 PM -- House Bill 08-1148

Senator Tupa, bill sponsor, explained the provisions of HB 08-1148. He explained that the bill amends the adverse possession law. He stated that adverse possession law allows an individual to use someone else's land for 18 years and then take ownership of that land. The individual using the land must use it continuously and openly for the entire 18 year period. This bill would set up additional obstacles to adverse possession. He stated that the bill does three things. First, it raises the burden of proof for the person asserting an adverse possession claim. Second, it requires that the claimant had a good faith belief that they were the owner of the property. Third, the bill permits a judge or a court to award compensation or damages for the loss of the property.

02:09 PM -- Susie Kirlin, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She related her personal experiences with adverse possession law.

02:18 PM -- Geoff Anderson, representing the Colorado Bar Association, spoke about the bill. He explained the background of adverse possession. He stated that the underlying basis for adverse possession is to put land to productive use.

02:22 PM

Senator Shaffer asked about the distinction between adverse possession and a prescriptive easement. Mr. Anderson explained that an easement is a situation where more than one person has rights to the same piece of land. This is common with utility companies that install and maintain utility lines. He indicated that a prescriptive easement is most commonly used either for the utility company or for an access right. If a property owner accesses his or her property through someone else's land for a long enough time then an individual can obtain a prescriptive easement where the individual does not own the land, but may use it to access his or her own property.

02:30 PM -- Fred Skillern, representing the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill. He explained that adverse possession usually involves cases that are used to the exclusion of the owner. He noted that adverse possession often serves a good function. He believes that this bill refines the law, but does not harm many of the good aspects of the law.

02:38 PM

Senator Shaffer asked about the criteria for perfecting an adverse possession claim under current common law. Mr. Skillern explained that adverse possession is a statute of limitations.

02:43 PM -- Willis Carpenter, representing himself, spoke in opposition to the bill. He explained that he is opposed because this legislation is premature. This case is on appeal and the judicial system has not had time to act. He believes that the adverse possession law has worked well for 150 years and should not be changed prematurely. He noted that Colorado has one of the longer statutes for adverse possession.

02:49 PM -- Bill Deibel, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He explained that he owns some property that he has not been able to build on and this case has him concerned. He fears the possibility of losing that land. He indicated that he would like to see an amendment to the bill that an individual who is adversely possessing the land should have to register with the county clerk so that the owner knows about the adverse possession.

02:52 PM -- Marcia Kosar, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She believes that the law is outdated, unfair, and being used in a way that it was not intended. She suggests that the bill be amended to make adverse possession more difficult to obtain.

02:56 PM -- Dana Marshall, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She suggested an amendment with a due diligence requirement. She related her personal experiences with adverse possession.

03:02 PM -- Galen Foster, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He related his personal experiences with an eminent domain claim. He indicated that he had not heard of adverse possession prior to the Boulder case and he wonders how many people will now file adverse possession claims.

03:03 PM -- Kim Snyder, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill.

03:04 PM -- James Benjamin, representing the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill. He distributed two handouts concerning his position (Attachments B and C). He stated that the Colorado Bar Association would prefer for adverse possession law to remain unchanged; however, he understands the political need to change the law. He does not believe that it would be beneficial to eliminate adverse possession; therefore, this bill is a good compromise.

03:10 PM

Mr. Benjamin discussed two proposed amendments (Amendment L.009--Attachment D and Amendment L.010--Attachment E). He indicated that Amendment L.009 reorders the bill to eliminate any ambiguities. Amendment L.010 changes the bill so that individuals who already have vested title through adverse possession do not have to pay damages for land they already own. However, all cases that vest after July 1, 2008 will be subject to the damages provision.

03:19 PM

Senator Penry asked about the possibility for retroactive applications of the bill.

03:26 PM

Senator Tupa concluded his presentation of the bill. He also discussed the proposed amendments L.009 and L.010.


BILL:	HB08-1148
TIME:	03:32:38 PM
MOVED:	Boyd
MOTION:	Moved Amendment L.009 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Bacon
	Boyd
	Penry
	Renfroe
	Ward	Excused
	Gibbs
	Shaffer
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB08-1148
TIME:	03:32:49 PM
MOVED:	Boyd
MOTION:	Moved Amendment L.010 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Bacon
	Boyd
	Penry
	Renfroe
	Ward	Excused
	Gibbs
	Shaffer
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB08-1148
TIME:	03:33:04 PM
MOVED:	Boyd
MOTION:	Moved to refer, as amended, HB 08-1148 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a 6-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Bacon	Yes
	Boyd	Yes
	Penry	Yes
	Renfroe	Yes
	Ward	Excused
	Gibbs	Yes
	Shaffer	Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS