The Essex CC Lawsuit

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary & Dave,

You're assuming that the homeowner will sell to the club, and often, that's the very last person/entity that they would sell to.

In addition, when home values are soaring, you can bet that the offer to sell to the club will come with a "penalty premium" attached to it, making it a difficult pill for the members to swallow.

Asking a membership of a couple of hundred members to spend $ 500,000 to $ 1,000,000 and up, to buy a nearby house isn't as easy as you think, although I favor the concept in the context of housing your superintendent or club manager in the facility.

A problem you have is if the house is nicer then most of the member's homes.

Brad Klein is right, the days of who was there first are almost over.  The issue is, does the condition create a safety hazard to the town residents ?

Lou Duran,

Each municipality has ordinances governing the allowable height for netting.  It is an eyesore to the homeowner, but it's an effective barrier, and as you say, can be a negotiating point.

Another solution is to provide free lessons for the members  

[David Wigler]

Guys,

Thanks to all of you for your input.  

Jason - For what it is worth, I was not taking a shot at Lawyers, just stating the fact that our BOD does not have one on it.

The real problem we have is that the home is at the end of the driving range.  No matter what we do with nets, some balls are going to go under, in between, or for a very few over those nets.  In essence, people are lining up at the home.  As of today, it is not a concern because even the longest of us can reach her property but not her house.  If they sell to a developer who puts up a 7-11 with a parking lot next to our range though, it is a different story.  We were just trying to understand if we had a defense in that instance and it appears we do not.

[Lou_Duran]

Don't concede so easily, Mr. Wigler.  The following may shed some light (or more confusion) on the subject matter.

http://www.abanet.org/rppt/publications/magazine/1997/11-2devl.html

(If it doesn't work, type Malouf v Dallas Athletic Club in your search engine)

Unless you're going to have John Daley out for an exhibition, is it really a big issue?  Talk to the home owner.  If it is a problem, offer the alternative of a net (if it is legally permissible in that community) or some drastic earth mounding.  That person may prefer a less costly alternative such as ornamental bushes or trees close to the house.

In as far as a 7-11 going in, I am not knowledgeable of zoning policies in Michigan, but they are probably more restrictive than average.  Typically, going from a residential use to commercial (considered to be a more intensive use of the property) requires stringent zoning and permitting work.  The public, particularly existing property owners in the vicinity, have ample opportunites to object.  And even when the zoning change is allowed, a number of conditions favorable to the surrounding property owners are attached (such as buffer zones, fencing, and other barriers with the costs borne by the developer).

In any event, if this is a serious issue, the club should retain a good lawyer.  Having the excellent fortune of sharing a boundary with the great state of Ohio, I am sure that you can find one nearby (maybe in Toledo) who was properly trained in Columbus.  

[Tom_Doak]

I wasn't involved at Essex when the lawsuit came up, but we did build the new green for the 14th.

One key thing which has not been mentioned:  as part of the settlement, the homeowner had to sign off on the revision to the golf hole as being "safe," and to list as a deed restriction that future owners were accepting the liability of the revised golf hole ... so for that particular lot, there is a "buyer beware" argument clearly spelled out.  Otherwise you could just repeat the problem every 5-10 years.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

David,  

For now I would worry a little less about your driving range and start worrying more about how big a can of whoop ass the Longhorns are gonna open on Baby Blue!!!

Merry Christmas

By the way I see a lot of older courses that have extreme violations of safety zones with adjacent properties and roads and have yet to see any design changes being made.  Apractice range is a serious situation though and I would expect you would want to take extra caution.  

[David Wigler]

KBM,

I hate to distract myself from a serious topic (And Tom Doak thank you very much for the insight, you make a great point) but now that you opened this can of worms, I expect you will accept a bet of a round at Plum Hollow and drinks the next time you are in town against a round at one of your courses and drinks the next time I get there - loser pays!

[Pat K]

As the greenkeeper of Essex I can tell you the cliff notes edition of the 14th hole.  After over two years of legal wrangling it came down to human safety. It doesn't matter who was there first if human safety is concerned. There was a lot of money spent on every angle to learn this lesson. It would have been money well spent to have bought the house and settled the whole affair. The club agreed to move the green and the neighbor agreed to allow trespass of balls in his property title. The rumor may be true about his having an adjoining cell of Martha Stewart.
        After this lesson was learned and the club rebuilt I'd have to say that it was a miserable Three years of legal hassles and the rebuilding process but the 14th hole is a better hole from the original and you would be hard pressed to pick it out as not being an original hole.

[JakaB]

Pat,

Plus you get to put Tom Doak's name on the scorecard....now if you can just find a butt boy who pays the dough should start rolling in..

[Pat K]

As great as TD may be it will be a cold day in you know where before another name is on the scorecard. Remember the hole never changed.

[JakaB]

As great as TD may be it will be a cold day in you know where before another name is on the scorecard. Remember the hole never changed.

You could have said...When butt boys fly..

[frank_D]

...It looks like the piece of property next to our driving range may be sold....

brother David

the club should buy the parcel of land - it's not only legal issues that arise but insurance coverages are effected (increase risk of loss) and related prevenative costs (netting, fencing, etc) are incurred

[Kelly Blake Moran]

You're on David.  

Although I have not experienced your situation, it might play out that if the land has not been developed, and there is local review and such as the process we endure in the northeast, you could go into those hearings requesting that the adjacent landowner adhere to certain setbacks and developemnt restrictions to ensure that their property is not developed in a manner that adversely affects your continued use of your property as a practice range.  I mean we have adjacent landowners come into these meetings and to some degree we must  meet certain planning guidelines so that we do not impact them, and we definately must meet certain engineering and construction requirements so we do not impact them.  Seems the shoe is on the other foot in this situation.  If the town allowed the adjaacent property to be developed in a manner that endangered the users, which would require you to abandoned your approved use or put up nets to lessen the adverse impact then the adjacent land developer should help pay for making you adjust to their development.  It seems incomprehensible the town would approve a use next to you that knowingly puts the end users at risk.  In the end the property could lose value because the town will not approve any development that makes the land profitable because it will endanger the users and therefore you can strike a deal with the landowner to buy the proerty at a more reasonable rate.  

[Tags:]

Tags: