If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ravalli Republic)   Couple buys a house next to a golf course, then sues because....well, this is America, you know why   (ravallirepublic.com) divider line 79
    More: Asinine, buyer beware, Ravalli County  
•       •       •

13237 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 6:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-15 08:51:40 AM
So, basically, some people threw $1500 on your lawn last year and you're annoyed about it.
 
2012-11-15 09:00:52 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: I am not for lawsuits, but I do appreciate a measure of justice, and I don't see that they got it here. This is not "airplane noise." This is the golf course using their property as an over-run for a non-trivial number of balls. It doesn't matter that there was a sheep pasture there before - 1300 balls per year suggests that the golf course is as a matter of ordinary business running a business that not by accident, but by design causes its patrons to disrupt their property. It would seem to me that the golf course would have an obligation to put up netting or re-design their course to make the ball onto private property an extreme outlier - which 1300 per year is not. these people are entitled to their private property - the golf course is not.

i dont think this is a trivial lawsuit. these people got shafted. their private property is being used at no charge by the golf course as an over-run, and presumably they are unable to fully enjoy their yard because of this. surely they can prevent access to their yard by golfers and sue those who trespass.

unfortunately, US law is not well set up to handle such 'micro-torts.' even if such torts in aggregate weigh more than actionable claims.


Yeah, no. That's less than three lost balls a day if the course is open year round, and if their property is on a location on the hole where golfers tend to misshoot it is not at all unreasonable.

My parents live on a golf course and have a situation very similar to this. The hole they live on is a dogleg left, and there is a copse of trees obscuring the green from the tee. All of the "pro" golfers take this as a challenge and think that if they can just clear the treeline they'll cut the distance to the hole in half. In reality clearing the treeline just means they end up out of bounds and right in my parents' backyard. My dad usually has a bucket full of balls for sale sitting on a stepladder near the cartpath, and on a weekend you can easily pick up half a dozen balls or more out of their yard.

These people got just the judgement they deserved. If there was any justice in the world it would also have come with a ten year moritorium banning them from any future lawsuits of any kind during that period.
 
2012-11-15 09:07:19 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: the judge ruled the same way a lot of you are reasoning about this case - by seat of the pants common sense rather than the application of any principle. there may well be a principle in favor of the golf course owner here, but i haven't seen it.


Article says Haynes ruled the golf course had a prescriptive easement to the property since balls had been landing there for more than five years without a challenge.

Montana Code says "A prescriptive easement is a right to use the property of another that is acquired by open, exclusive, notorious, hostile, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted use for a period of 5 years."

In an opinion on the subject of prescriptive easements (though not directly related to the issue at hand), the Montana Legislative Services Office says of exclusivity that "This element does not mean that no one else may use the easement in question. It merely means that the right of the person claiming the easement does not depend on the same right residing in others." The other elements are self-explanatory.

I am not a lawyer, but this seems like a reasonable application of Montana law.
 
2012-11-15 09:08:01 AM

The Onion is prophetic: They sued, and lost... bigtime. Hopefully their lawyer was smart enough to get cash up front and not go with a contingency agreement.


I hope their lawyer took the case on contingency and lost his ass.
 
2012-11-15 09:16:15 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: the judge ruled the same way a lot of you are reasoning about this case - by seat of the pants common sense


Well, we certainly wouldn't want common sense to prevail, would we?

Look, this isn't hard to understand: a golf ball cannot be a trespasser.
 
2012-11-15 09:18:54 AM

FizixJunkee: ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

Or move next to a whorehouse and complain about their boners?


Or move to San Francisco* and complain about the tramps, junkies and whores?


Mr. Coffee Nerves: What they didn't expect was the old men in the "crack of dawn" foursomes to wake them by screaming "Corksucking motherfarking coontrag son of a whore ball! You slicing piece of farking shiat!"


blog.room34.com


AverageAmericanGuy: Just can't get over the smell of that dairy air.


Arse.

*I'm not stereotyping out of ignorance. I spent several miserable months in North Beach some years ago. Worst people I've ever encountered in my life, by quite a long ways. The weather was genrally pleasant and the burritos were lovely, mind.
 
2012-11-15 09:19:29 AM
How exactly does the golf course not have to put up a net on golf course property to block the balls?

You can get in trouble because your dog barking upsets the neighbors, but throwing shiat in someone's yard is OK?
 
2012-11-15 09:43:36 AM

FizixJunkee: ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

Or move next to a whorehouse and complain about their boners the smell?


/fify
 
2012-11-15 09:49:55 AM
This sort of thing makes me wonder how much time people actually spend thinking about what is probably the most expensive purchase of their life. I used to drive over a patch of "semi-highway" for lack of a better term. 3 lanes each way, limited traffic lights, 50 mph. On this road there is a bridge over a heavily travelled section of Union Pacific double train tracks. There are now new housing developments on two of the "corners". So while driving over the elevated bridge about 30 ft. up I can see into the back yards of a bunch of houses, so I know they can hear the road noise. The whole last row of each development backs right up against the tracks which are also slightly elevated and only separated by the right of way.... its a recipe for auditory misery, but yet they're all sold. I'm really curious as to who the guy was who chose that back corner lot that is sided by the highway AND the train tracks. What the hell was he thinking? I know that developers will price certain lots more than others, but if I'm buying a $300k house (what these houses cost) , even if you offered me that lot for free I'd still walk away.... pay for a lot, find a cheaper house, find an existing house... basically anything short of being next to a Superfund site is a step up. I just don't understand the thought process.

/CSB
 
2012-11-15 09:59:24 AM
Reminds me of a guy in Las Vegas who bought a house near the railroad tracks, then complained when the freight trains started rolling through at 4am. The best part? He was a rocket scientist (literally).
 
2012-11-15 10:02:55 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves:

Mmmm, no. If the golf course popped up out of nowhere after the couple moved in, then the couple would have a case. The judge had it right.

Well counselor, I'm bowled over by the sheer power of the repetitive vapidity of your assertion. So, now that you've convinced me on general principle, i'm sure you'll also have no problem with my claim that just because my scrapyard has been dumping 50 or so used tires per year in the abandoned but private lot that you purchased for redevelopment, that i should be able to do this indefinitely. after all, if 1300 golf balls are a deliberate and predictable action, then my 50 tires per year are no different. after all, i wuz here first and you should have seen that i dump tires here regularly.

go ahead - i await your "yeah but" distinction wihout a difference reply.


Have you always been a troll or is this a new hobby for you?
 
2012-11-15 10:09:11 AM
Clear thinking from Republicans?? I think not!!
 
2012-11-15 10:18:06 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: DerAppie: Bomb Head Mohammed: surely they can prevent access to their yard by golfers and sue those who trespass.

FTFA: This opinion simply holds that members and users of the HGC's 18th tee, rough, and hole commit no trespass when errant golf balls enter into Brady's property."

The golfers are not allowed to trespass. And the judge was right. If they simply asked about /at the golf course I'm sure people would have been able to tell them what was happening with the balls in the garden. They didn't so they lost.

Ok, then by logic, my throwing of used tires from the curb onto your property also is "no trespass." (read my previous post). You might say "wait, but one is an accident and the other is on purpose." Bullshiat. 1300 golf balls a year is not an accident - it's a stochastical inevitability. But you might say "well, but the golf balls are part of the golf course's business" which is true, just like getting rid of old tires is part of mine. but you then say "but the golf course has no choice in the matter but you with your tires do" which is again bullshiat. The golf course can put up a net or re-design its green so that it is not causing interference with a landowner's safe and lawful use of his own property.

1300 golf balls is no accident and the golf course is not a charity. the judge ruled the same way a lot of you are reasoning about this case - by seat of the pants common sense rather than the application of any principle. there may well be a principle in favor of the golf course owner here, but i haven't seen it.


So where did you get your GED in law?

The golf course successfully argued that they had no liability for individual golfers actions on the course and no individual golfer intended to hit their balls onto the adjoining property as that would create a two stroke penalty. Thereby establishing that golf balls landing on the property, no matter the number are an accident and the responsibility of the individual golfer not the course itself.

The difference between this and the tire scenario is that in the tire scenario the action of dumping the tires is deliberate and not an accident. It can also be attributed to a single individual or firm and not multiple individuals acting independently.
 
2012-11-15 10:19:38 AM
farm8.staticflickr.com
/getting a kick, etc.
 
2012-11-15 10:22:10 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves:

Mmmm, no. If the golf course popped up out of nowhere after the couple moved in, then the couple would have a case. The judge had it right.

Well counselor, I'm bowled over by the sheer power of the repetitive vapidity of your assertion. So, now that you've convinced me on general principle, i'm sure you'll also have no problem with my claim that just because my scrapyard has been dumping 50 or so used tires per year in the abandoned but private lot that you purchased for redevelopment, that i should be able to do this indefinitely. after all, if 1300 golf balls are a deliberate and predictable action, then my 50 tires per year are no different. after all, i wuz here first and you should have seen that i dump tires here regularly.

go ahead - i await your "yeah but" distinction wihout a difference reply.


The bigger issue with your scenario is that dumping tires is illegal.
 
2012-11-15 10:25:18 AM
I have little sympathy for people who move next to something they might find obnoxious, and then biatch and moan and demand expensive solutions even as they whine about taxes.

My town has always had a rail line running through it. My house is about 100 yards away, and I long ago learned to tune out the trains. However, suburban sprawl caught up with us, and the newcomers have put up such a stink about the train noise that the town is jumping through all the hoops to get quiet zones. Aside from the barriers to keep idiots from driving around the gates, it also means reducing the speed limit on the main route out of town. Bastards.

The punch line is that there were many more trains at all hours of the day 40 years ago than there are now.
 
2012-11-15 10:26:01 AM
I think this might be the 18th hole in question:

i12.photobucket.com

Observe the water between the tee and the fairway. The front of the water is about 85 yards from the tee, and the water is about 45 yards across. A certain number of golfers each day will choose to hit around the water in an attempt to preserve their sub-100 scores. That means they will tee off directly toward the house (though the house itself is about 260 yards away). Every day, on average, 3.5 of those that go around will have their ball end up on the grounds of the home. That doesn't seem like enough to get stressed about, unless you're just looking for a settlement.

But there's good news for the neighbors: I'm sure the golfers at this course will now be much more careful not to cause any more anguish for them, even if the greens fees do have to go up to pay for the legal expenses.
 
2012-11-15 10:43:58 AM

MathProf: I think this might be the 18th hole in question:


According to Golfshot, that's #9. The 18h is the straight par 4 in the opposite direction on the other side of what appears to be the main road. As you can see from the satellite imagery, there is no house even remotely close to the fairway.
 
2012-11-15 10:46:08 AM

painless42: This sort of thing makes me wonder how much time people actually spend thinking about what is probably the most expensive purchase of their life. I used to drive over a patch of "semi-highway" for lack of a better term. 3 lanes each way, limited traffic lights, 50 mph. On this road there is a bridge over a heavily travelled section of Union Pacific double train tracks. There are now new housing developments on two of the "corners". So while driving over the elevated bridge about 30 ft. up I can see into the back yards of a bunch of houses, so I know they can hear the road noise. The whole last row of each development backs right up against the tracks which are also slightly elevated and only separated by the right of way.... its a recipe for auditory misery, but yet they're all sold. I'm really curious as to who the guy was who chose that back corner lot that is sided by the highway AND the train tracks. What the hell was he thinking? I know that developers will price certain lots more than others, but if I'm buying a $300k house (what these houses cost) , even if you offered me that lot for free I'd still walk away.... pay for a lot, find a cheaper house, find an existing house... basically anything short of being next to a Superfund site is a step up. I just don't understand the thought process.

/CSB


Maybe he was deaf?
 
2012-11-15 10:49:35 AM

painless42: I'm really curious as to who the guy was who chose that back corner lot that is sided by the highway AND the train tracks.


Doesn't bother some people. I lived near a highway for some time and it wasn't really that bad. Every now and then you'd get an unusually loud truck or a big blob of trucks all at once, but for the most part you could only hear it through the walls at night when it was otherwise quiet, but that really only bugged me maybe a half dozen times in all the years I live there when I was already having trouble sleeping for some other reason anyway. Saved many, many thousands on the house too because of the road. It was a little tough to sell, but patience prevailed and we sold it to some like-minded people. Anymore, you don't even get much soot messing up your siding and windows because most trucks out there now are newer and subject to clean diesel rules.

Eventually we got a sound wall because they diverted another road onto the highway and expanded it and the traffic picked up significantly, but most people in the neighborhood were actually more annoyed about the ugly wall than the noise.

The only thing in those years that really, really bugged me was the construction during the expansion. They did the paving at night so three nights in all those years I got almost no sleep because you can hear those piercing reverse warning beeps from forever and a mile away.

I wouldn't want to be one of the first rows of houses or on a really busy highway, but considering my first house was a 2500 sq ft house in a good neighborhood with 1.5 acres of land for $195,000 when similar houses in nearby developments not on the highway were going for nearly $250,000, I wasn't real broken up about the noise. Thanks to the downturn I only sold it for three grand more than I paid, but for a first house, the savings was definitely a worthwhile trade-off for the minor inconvenience of the highway.
 
2012-11-15 10:50:21 AM
I wanted to post a pic of someone getting hit with golf balls, but I guess the only "torture" is the tee in the mouth.....either way......

FOUR
 
2012-11-15 10:55:05 AM
I have to deal with these people all the time. They move near a landfill or wastewater treatment plant, then complain, sue, etc. They can never admit they are dumb arses for what they did, and expect that a landfill can be moved or "cleaned up".
 
2012-11-15 11:05:27 AM
This is like my brother who moved into a neighborhood by the train tracks. Then he spend his time complaining about the noise. I said, "Dude, you live in an RV, just move."
 
2012-11-15 11:15:11 AM
We have a small airport near where I live that caters to small aircraft, some helicopters, and a skydiving school. It has been there for decades. But once the area became a preferred area for families to raise kids (its out in the country surrounded by farm land) many sub divisions and housing developments were built. People move in, and knowing full well that their property abutted the airport before buying decide to petition to have the airport closed as they don't like the noise of the planes during the daylight hours on weekends.

So far, the airport is still there and I don't see that changing.
 
2012-11-15 11:30:11 AM
Or the people that move into new subdivisions built on former wooded land who complain about the deer, raccoons, opossums, etc.
 
2012-11-15 11:41:17 AM

Mark Ratner: Free balls.


to sell back to the golfers. with lemonade. much better plan than selling on the street.
 
2012-11-15 02:39:30 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: So, basically, some people threw $1500 on your lawn last year and you're annoyed about it.


Would YOU sit out on your lawn drinking Margaritas knowing a golf ball could land in the glass at any moment?
 
2012-11-15 02:48:05 PM
Do these people also own land near Long Beach airport?
 
2012-11-15 03:16:21 PM

usernameguy: Obama


No, because you're a phukking moron.

Always somebody who has to turn the thread into obamm-bamm/romney/teabagger "Lookit me! I did polyticks again!!!!"

Good gawd. Get a life
.
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report