of Corey and Krysta Kirton Niner

Introduction

This dispute is not about preventing our neighbors from accessing their own property. It is about protecting the boundaries, history, and integrity of our private 2.5-acre property, which is separate from the neighboring subdivision.

Our property is not part of that subdivision. It has its own chain of title, its own federal land patent, and its own legal boundaries. Likewise, the plaintiffs’ property has its own chain of title and includes roadway language affecting their parcel. We believe this lawsuit attempts to obtain rights over our property that should instead be addressed within their own property.

The Beginning of the Dispute

The dispute began shortly after the plaintiffs moved into the neighboring subdivision.

Rather than preserving the historic condition of the area, they began making changes near our shared boundary and within the natural wash that crosses both properties. The wash is a natural drainage feature extending across multiple parcels, but each owner remains responsible for respecting the property boundaries where the wash crosses their land.

The plaintiffs placed decorative landscaping rock and other non-native materials into the wash and historic roadway. Those materials were inconsistent with the natural desert environment and created conditions that changed the historic character of the area. During rain events, those rocks had the potential to wash downstream onto our property.

The landscaping also created unsafe footing across portions of the historic roadway.

To restore the historic condition, I removed the landscaping materials that had been placed onto our side of the property and returned those materials to the plaintiffs’ property. I accomplished this by hand with a shovel. A Sheriff’s Office incident report was created regarding that event.

That report is significant because it documents that the dispute began when the plaintiffs altered the historic roadway—not because we interfered with their property.

Continued Trespass and Alterations

After that initial incident, the plaintiffs continued crossing onto our property without permission.

They repeatedly acted as though our property was part of their subdivision and attempted to improve, landscape, alter, or develop areas beyond their legal boundary.

Throughout this process we repeatedly informed them that they were outside their property boundaries and asked them to stop.

Instead of respecting those requests, they continued asserting that the property did not belong to us.

As a result, we repeatedly contacted the Sheriff’s Office seeking assistance with trespass and property boundary issues.

Rather than resolving those issues, we were repeatedly advised that the dispute was civil in nature and that we should obtain legal counsel.

That advice ultimately resulted in the present litigation.

Damage to the Property

During these unauthorized entries, items and features unique to this historic property were removed, discarded, damaged, or destroyed without our permission.

Some of those items were historically significant and cannot be replaced.

The plaintiffs also altered portions of the historic roadway and wash in ways that changed the appearance and function of the area.

Our efforts have consistently been directed toward restoring the historic condition—not changing it.

Historic Roadway

Neither we nor the county have sought to relocate the historic roadway.

Our understanding is that the county does not intend to change its historic alignment, and neither do we.

The roadway should remain where it has historically existed.

When we restored portions of the roadway, we did so because previous alterations had changed its historic condition.

At times we also shaped or banked portions of the roadway to keep traffic following the historic alignment instead of widening into our property. Those actions were intended to preserve the existing roadway—not create a new one.

Separate Property Rights

The plaintiffs’ subdivision and our property are separate.

Our parcel has never been dedicated as part of their subdivision, nor have we ever agreed that it should function as one.

The plaintiffs’ own property contains roadway language affecting their parcel.

This lawsuit seeks to impose an additional burden on our property instead of recognizing the access associated with their own property.

We respectfully submit that they are pursuing the wrong property owner.

Sheriff’s Reports

Every Sheriff’s Office incident report relating to this dispute should be considered during mediation.

Those reports document years of objections, boundary disputes, trespass complaints, roadway issues, restoration efforts, and continuing disagreements.

They demonstrate that we consistently objected to the plaintiffs’ activities and never acquiesced to the use or alteration of our property.

Those reports provide important historical context and should be reviewed chronologically alongside photographs, surveys, county records, and other documentary evidence.

Our Position

We have never attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs’ lawful use of their own property.

We simply ask that they respect ours.

Our goal has always been to preserve the historic roadway, protect the natural wash, maintain our private property boundaries, and prevent further unauthorized entry onto our land.

This mediation should examine the complete history of the dispute from the time the plaintiffs first moved into the neighboring subdivision—not merely the filing of the lawsuit.

Only by reviewing the full sequence of events can the parties understand how this dispute developed.

We respectfully request that our property rights be recognized, that unauthorized trespass and alterations cease, that the historic roadway remain in its historic location, and that each property owner exercise only the rights associated with their own property without imposing an unwarranted prescriptive easement upon ours.