‘You can't displace someone': This Denver couple is suing developers, city over alleged property encroachment
Jorge Cardenas and Griselda Barbosa Martinez from the West Colfax neighborhood of Denver have filed a 50-page lawsuit against the City of Denver, a property developer and a construction company, accusing them of violating the family's rights and threatening their property, reports CBS News Colorado.
The couple claims that, due to the construction next door, the alley beside their property was shifted closer to their home, which endangered a retaining wall and several mature trees. Yet, according to the lawsuit, neither the city nor the developers could define the boundary of the alley and no due process was followed.
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
'This is our home,' Barbosa Martinez told CBS News Colorado in Spanish.
The couple have lived in the house for 20 years and have reconstructed it during that time. As new apartment and townhome developments rose around them, they've turned down multiple unsolicited offers from developers, including one for $180,000 in 2022, even though homes nearby were selling for more than half a million. Later that year, the construction started.
When it did, 'they received a letter on their door advising them that in another week, this construction company would be coming onto their property and knocking down all their trees and that the City of Denver had given authorization for it,' Anna Martinez, the couple's attorney, told CBS News Colorado.
'You could never go to your neighbor's house and say, 'Your trees are in my yard, so I'm chopping them down.' But that's essentially what the threat was,' she said, adding that the lawsuit is about basic rights, protecting the couple's home and whether a private company can exercise city authority.
'You can't displace someone from their property. You can't chop down their trees. You can't trespass onto their land if you don't know where the line is,' she said.
The city and the developer declined to comment because of the ongoing litigation. The case is awaiting a decision by the courts as to whether it will proceed.
'Technically, any physical feature (from a building extension to landscaping) that crosses the legal boundary line is an encroachment if it's on your property without your permission,' Alexei Morgado, CEO and founder of Lexawise Real Estate Exam Prep, told Realtor.com. These features can include such things as fences, tree limbs and structural overhangs.
'Property encroachments, though they might sound like a minor concern, can significantly impact the value of your home,' Indianapolis law firm Katzman & Katzman, P.C. says in a blog.
The firm explains that these encroachments can make your home harder to sell — appraisers might lower the value of the home, which can reduce the price you can sell it for. And the legal costs of fighting an encroachment 'can eat into your home's equity.'
In most states, you're required to disclose any encroachments to prospective buyers. If it's unknown and discovered during the sales process, it may affect the buyer's ability to get financing and could delay the sale. In the worst case, the neighbor could claim adverse possession, which would grant them title to the encroached area and reduce your property value.
Read more: This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs
If you suspect your neighbor's property is encroaching on yours, the first thing to do is verify that this is, in fact, the case.
'A homeowner who believes that a neighbor has erected a fence, shed, driveway or some other encroaching structure onto their property should first make sure they have a current survey,' Thomas Weiss, real estate litigation attorney at Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP, told Realtor.com.
If you got a deed or survey when you bought the home, you can check this. Or, you may be able to find information at the local land record office. However, you may need to commission a professional survey prepared by a licensed surveyor.
Many encroachments are unintentional, so a good approach is to start with a calm, friendly conversation. If you're unable to resolve the dispute, send a formal letter notifying the neighbor of the encroachment, providing details and demanding a remedy by a certain date.
If this still doesn't bring about a solution, then you may need to consider taking legal action. The laws vary by state so consult a lawyer who specializes in real estate law.
Alternatively, you can allow the encroachment to remain through an easement agreement or a revocable license. An easement agreement is a legal agreement that will allow the neighbor to use the portion of your property that is being encroached for a specific purpose and period.
A revocable license will allow your neighbor to keep the encroachment, but this permission can be revoked at any time. It differs from an easement because it's much harder to revoke an easement.
An easement or revocable license can still hurt your property value because it's a hassle many buyers don't want to deal with.
However you choose to deal with an encroachment, it's best to tackle it head-on — and as soon as possible — to save headaches and the potential loss of some of your property in the future.
Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now
Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you?
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Will Rubio move to ban Chinese students from the US?
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Protest erupts after immigration raid, police in standoff


CBS News
11 minutes ago
- CBS News
Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices
Desire Godfrey said it was time for a vehicle upgrade. The Lancaster mother had her eye on a Lexus. "I had a baby, so I'm looking for something reliable for me and a baby," Godfrey said. She searched online and found what she thought was the right vehicle at The Reserve Auto Group in The Colony. She described the sales process in May 2024 as a positive experience. Warranty and GAP insurance issues But an unexpected oil change six months later changed everything. Godfrey, 33, said a Lexus dealership informed her the vehicle was not under warranty. She also discovered her GAP insurance policy didn't exist. "They (Reserve Auto Group) never paid the warranty company the money they were supposed to pay to activate this warranty and this GAP insurance," she said. Car loan charges continue Godfrey said the costs were included in her car note. She filed a report with The Colony Police Department — and she's not alone. Police said they received their first complaint on Jan. 31. According to a news release, police have been investigating multiple fraud claims connected to the dealership since 2023. The business shut down in December 2024, but complaints continue to come in. Alleged auto fraud pattern Investigators said customers were allegedly instructed to write separate checks for aftermarket warranties or GAP insurance policies. Those payments were supposed to go to third-party providers, but police said the dealership allegedly cashed the checks and never forwarded the money — leaving customers without coverage. Another victim comes forward A second alleged victim, who spoke to CBS News Texas anonymously, said she and her husband also bought a Lexus from the dealership. She provided a non-activation letter from DOWC Administrative Services LLC, a company that offers GAP insurance and warranties. The letter stated: "Please be advised that Reserve Auto has failed to remit payment to Us as the Administrator and Provider for your Contract. Consequently, the Contract was not activated in our system." Investigation still ongoing Police have not made any arrests or publicly identified anyone associated with the allegations. Officers said they are continuing to vet additional alleged victims. CBS News Texas is not naming the person listed as the dealership's owner, as police have indicated he did nothing wrong. He spoke briefly by phone, saying he wanted to schedule an appointment to discuss the claims further because he believed "we did not have all the facts." When asked for clarification, he said he didn't have time to explain. Legal team responds Two emails followed the call, and attorneys from Herrin Law introduced themselves. "We have no comment at this time. Thank you for your interest in our client's side of the story," attorney Benjamin Palatiere said. He requested that all future inquiries be directed to him. Buyer left without coverage Meanwhile, Godfrey said the vehicle itself has not had any issues. But she continues to pay for a warranty and insurance that don't exist. "So nobody wants to refinance the loan. Nobody wants to give me GAP insurance," she said. "It's just more so like I'm going to take it or leave it. If I wreck the car, then I would have to figure out a way to pay that car off." Godfrey said she hopes to recover the money one day.


CBS News
22 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"