[Jim_Coleman]

   No Jon, you could not argue that.  The alleged nuisance derives from danger to people or property.  Only hitting a tree poses no danger.  If hitting a ball out of bounds is a nuisance, bye bye golf.

[Mark Fedeli]

For me, it’s no different than buying property next to a music venue and then complaining about the noise, or a garbage dump and then complaining about the smell.

But if garbage or drunk concert-goers constantly wound up on your lawn, it might be a different story. 

[Lou_Duran]

You buy a house on a golf course, you assume the risk of errant shots on your property. The trial court got it right. Not rocket science.

I damned near fell out of my chair.  Coming from a member of the bar, how refreshing and unusual!

[Niall C]

Lou

I have to say I was also very surprised by the view taken by our learned friend from Atlanta. Even though you might expect it, does that mean you should put up with it or not be allowed to put an end to it so you can enjoy your own property in peace ?

The question of damages is something else. If the nuisance, or even the perceived possibility of nuisance existed then presumably that would have been reflected in the price paid for the property, so when the nuisance disappears due to a court order then presumably the value of the property goes up, so where is the loss ? Or am I just oversimplifying things ?

Niall

[Bruce Katona]

The legal costs involved with 10 years of filing and responding to motions likely far outweighs any cost associated with replanting 100% of a buffer at the home owners own costs.......but some folks like to to the "winner, winner, chicken dinner" dance, though it took a decade an monetarily it may have been a net loss.

[BCrosby]

Sympathetic losers make for hard cases.


If you bought a house on a golf course and didn't think you would be bombarded by errant balls, tree buffers or no tree buffers, you probably overpaid.


Bob

[SL_Solow]

While the law evolves, the majority of precedent has held that if the course was in existence prior to the home purchase and the course has not changed its design in a way to materially change the risk, the homeowner assumed the risk and the course will not be liable.  As equipment has changed, questions have risen suggesting that the risk has increased due to the ability of golfers to hit the ball further offline.  Moreover, there are often issues of fact regarding the materiality of changes, e.g. the tree "removal" at Quaker Ridge.  But Bob's summary of the law is generally correct, at least in the US.

[Peter Flory]

I can imagine that many non golfers have bought houses like this without realizing what they were buying. 

[Pete Lavallee]

Perhaps they should be litigating against Taylor Made and Titleist!

[Lou_Duran]

I can imagine that many non golfers have bought houses like this without realizing what they were buying.

I would think that their realtor might have some liability if that was the case.  Hard to understand why people who don't play or understand golf would want to live on a golf course.  I play a lot and never had the desire.


Pete Lavallee,


I am glad to hear that you're hitting the ball too far these days.  And here I thought that the new balls and equipment only favored the fast swing speed players and that the balls tended to fly straighter.


I hope that your suggestion doesn't result in new adds seeking class action clients against OEMs.  We have a grim-looking guy in Houston, "The Texas Hammer, the tough, smart lawyer" who is now joined by his son in chasing ambulances via TV ads.  Maybe he looks in on the site and adds golf litigation to his revenue stream.  BTW, at my home club, you break a window, you pay for it.  I don't hit it out of my shadow so no worries.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()