[Chip_Royce]

Not sure how many of you are aware, but the Essex County Club, here in Manchester, MA has been part of an ongoing tussle with a neighbor that borders the east boundary of the course.

Essex was home to Donald Ross for some time after he moved the the U.S. He lived on the East part of the course, in a lovely home and reworked the orig. 9 hole routing into the course it is today. According to Brad Klein (Golfweek and author), this course (one of Ross' early designs) is rare track that has been left virtually intact from Ross' original plans. (article on this course can be found here in GCA.com)

The 14th hole, a nice 187 yd par 3, borders their property (separated by a small road). The  neighbors (plaintiffs) have sought relief from the club, asserting that their well-being is threatened by hooked golf balls from the men's tees.

A legal battle has been going on for over 2 years now (since the people moved into this house). The won an injunction prohibiting play from anything but the 2 ladies tees (127 and 57 yds). A court date seemed to be set for later this year to examine the case more closely.

NOW, it seems that some settlement may have been reached, to the course's detriment. I don't have official word from any members, but blasting and tree clearing has commenced to the right of the current green complex. Speculation is that the entire green may be replicated approx. 20 yards to the right of the current green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

What I don't understand, that perhaps a Mass. lawyer can explain is:

Was the house built after the golf course already existed ?

When the people bought the house, did the sellers mention anything about stray golf balls ?

Why wouldn't the town permit the erecting of a large/tall net on the clubs property line ?

What is the offset from the club's property line, to the home owners property line ?
To the home itself ?

Why did the club settle ?

[Charles]

It sounds like the work is in good hands (Tom Doak's), maybe he can comment:
http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2001/business/news/24566.asp

[Matt]

Disgusting. These people move in, build a tacky, ostentatious 'McMansion' and then complain about the course across the street that has been there over a hundred years before they got there!. Another sad commentary on our litigious society.

As someone who has hooked many a ball from those original tees, the house is not in much danger, it would take a lucky and prodigious hook to go through the line of trees, cross the street, avoid the trees on the other side and endanger them.

And it is a par three!...we're talking about hitting 4 iron down to 6 iron depending on the wind!. Not even a driver hole!.

[ForkaB]

Chip

The exact same thing happened to the 3rd hole at Dornoch about 15 years ago.  A that time the club made the mistake of not formally objecting when planning permission was sought for a house being built on the ridge overlooking the 3rd fairway.  Becuase they did not object, they had no defense when the owner sued the club to alter the hole to stop balls being hit into his back yard.

Of course, Scot's law is different than US/Mass. law, but I wonder if Essex CC made the same mistake when the "McMansion" was going through the permitting stage?

Rich

[Matt]

It may be in good hands, but what a shame. That is a beautiful and difficult green. They should just create a new tee for a different angle into the green, although that would ruin the strategy designed into the green.....how sad.

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich:

Does the homeowner go over to the Club for a pint?

Bob

[Massachusetts]

Massachusetts

[Gimpy]

What ever happened to "buyer beware".  We have a similar situation at my home course were a homeowner purchased a small house on a large lot at the end of our range.  We already have an approximate 250 ft. net at the end of the range to protect the homeowner.  Problem is, the old house has been demolished and the new owner is building approximately 22,000 sq. ft on the lot that originally had a 3,000 sq. ft. house.  Now the house is very near the end of our range and an occasional ball might go over.  The homeowner is making noise that our club needs to heighten our net another 100+ ft.  The cost to increase the net in very expensive as it will require significant supports and wiring.  

Why should the club be responsible for his poor decision to locate his house so close to the property line, with the full knowledge a driving range is adjacent to the property line.  Has anyone ever had a similar situation?

[Chip_Royce]

Patrick and others....

Interestingly enough, this home is certainly NOT a McMansion. Manchester, like other Massachusetts towns, dates back to the 17th century and, especially near the center of town, has little undeveloped land for purchase.

I'd estimate, this home, like most others in town, goes back to the 1920-30's. Its a modest stone structure, across the street from the course. From the scuttlebut I've heard, this is the first time a non-Essex member has not lived there in generations.

To answer some questions...

1) not sure if sellers' disclosed the 'stray golf ball" issue

2) The club sought to erect a net (I happened by chance to be at one of the planning board meetings when this was presented to the town for discussion), however, the proposal never got developed sufficiently for approval.

3) As for offset, the house is ACROSS the street from the hole. The farthest left bunker guarding the green is at least 15 feet from the roadway... that's also lined with trees. The road is 2 lanes... then the house seems an additional 10-20 feet from the road.

4) Why did the club settle? The rumors are that the homeowner had gotten a lot of traction in the courts (here in the Communist Republic of Massachusetts, property owners, especially those of the golf club member type, are instant targets for proletariat (sp ) juries).  I think the club, esp. with the injunction, needed to find a suitable remedy before greater penalities were applied.

[Chip_Royce]

Rich -

I had the pleasure of staying 4 nights at the Royal Golf Hotel... sorry we hadn't chatted sooner... would have enjoyed a pint or two after our rounds. (Am keeping in communication with Brian Rich in the event that the club opens up for international membership again)

Funny... I would never had suspected due to the nature of Dornoch that any litigant would have ground to stand on for such a claim.

C

[Chip_Royce]

Gimby -
Couldn't agree more. I have to believe that its just poor judgement on the part of property owners, developers, etc... not to put covenants or other caveats on property title to ensure that future owners can't come into an area and fundementally change its relationship with neigboring golf courses.
C

[ForkaB]

Bob

He's a member(and ex-local police sergeant, but I think he's found it difficult to get a game recently.....

Massachusetts

I was born in you and can call you anything I want!

[Matt]

Oops, my aplogies to the folks in the (relatively) new house closer to the tee, which looked like a mcmansion to me. The fact that the complainer is opposite the green makes it more ridiculous. That's a bomb to get there through the air, unless balls are skipping across the road.

[Jim Reilly]

The nuisance would have to have been open and obvious to the buyer, or they would have had to be informed of it, in order for them to be estopped from raising a claim.  From the description of the situation, it doesn't appear that it is open and obvious.

As far as the club putting restrictive covenants in the deeds of property adjoining the course; well, the course would have to own the property.  Also, the phrasing of such a restriction might be tricky:  "said club has an easement to occasionally duck hook golf balls into your property...".

To get an injunction, the owners would have to show that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm and that they would likely win on the merits.  You can understand how a judge who is being told that golf balls are raining down like meteors might want to err on the side of caution and tell the club to take precautions until the suit is decided on the merits.  

That being said, if I were a Massachusetts litigator I would take the club's case.  If the owner could not be bought off for a reasonable fee (or the club believes his claims are completely capricious and, therefore, don't want to make any concessions), then I would do my best during the voir dire to load the jury with golfers and then spend an afternoon describing the history of Donald Ross, the club and its special place in the history of America (complete  with expert testimony from architects and members of the Donald Ross society).  To move the green seems a drastic step.  The owner hasn't suffered any damages to this point (as far as I know).  The most he could win would be a permanent injunction ordering the club to do something or not do something (e.g. not to allow play from that tee).  It appears the only thing the club is saving by moving the green without a fight are its legal fees; which, as a lawyer, I find to be a terrible precedent.

[Gary Sherman]

In the Communistwealth of Massachusetts, private clubs are on the Mass Attorney Generals watch list.  I know, I am a member at Haverhill Country Club.  We have had an internal issue that escalated into a discrimination suit by a few members.   The judge, jury and AG office sided with the plaintiffs and we are under an injunction.  A private club that provides any access by the public through hosting of functions, meetings,etc is deemed to be under Mass law.

Other Mass clubs are under the watchful eye of the AG's office as well.   You must realize that the number one sport in Massachusetts is not Baseball, basketball or football...it is politics.  I am sure Essex did not want this episode to go too far and settled even though they could have fought it in court.  If Essex was in my  home state of New Hampshire (ie Live Free ir Die), the club would win.

[Massachusetts]

Need I say more?

[Brad Klein]

Several points.

The house in question is 1927 - after the golf course. The owner who sold it to the current occupant was an Essex member who apparently may have under-represented the nature of the problem to the new occupants, who are non-golfers. The plaintiffs told me that there were several issues with the previous owners about the house that they settled out of court; one of them may have been under-reporting of the golf ball issue. The new owners saw the property after golf season, and didn't get a full sense of the problem until the next spring.

There is no such legal claim as buyer beware in such cases in any state I know of. In any case, the nature of the threat has altered over the years owing to different use patterns, ball vectors, velocities, etc. Jury trials in such cases are tough to win; perhaps the club could have prevailed, but it did not help their case that they ducked the issue for over a year before addressing it at all.

My sense is that there were unique circumstances to this case and that it is not a dangerous precedent to other holes elsewhere. It all depends upon the level of threat to public safety. My sense in this case was that it was substantial. Luckily, Essex has room for a replaceemnt green. Best luck to Doak and Co. that they get it right.

[Peter Galea]

Why doesn't the club buy the house and use it for a guest residence? Problem solved. Ross green intact.

[Chip_Royce]

Buy the house?

Rumor has it that the owner wanted $2.5M for the house. I believe he bought it for less than $500K

[Chip_Royce]

Matt -
you're right... across from the tee is a (rather nice) McMansion.

As for going across the road, I was surprised when I first learned of the problem. You'd think that a majority of golfers would cut the ball, not hook it across the road.

From my experience here in town, however... the prevailing wind quarters from right to left, and may cause badly struck balls to move left and then bounce on the road into the neightbor's lawn.

C

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Gimpy
I had very similar problem a few years ago.  Neighbor behind my driving range filed suit against me.  We settled out of court.  Raised the net, I must use limited flight balls and he cannot sue again.  Ugly.
But then he sued again saying that the road he took to the house was dangerous, and this was different from the Settlement Agreement.  Settled again by raising the nets.  I was told outside California I would have a case, his house was built after range was already there.  He "came to the nusiance."  I think in the Midwest one stands a better chance.  In a trial I could see people bringing out graphite shafts and drivers, despite our being told by the USGA that the ball "isn't being hit any farther."

[Gimpy]

Lynn,

Thanks for the information.  We have already switched to limited flight balls and only allows woods on the back 10% of the range (when open).  If we are forced to raise the net another 100+ feet, I have recommended that that portion of the net be bright orange, fully light (24/7), and the poles fitted with strobe lights to ward off nearby aircraft (high power stobes).  It would be interesting to present the solution to the homeowner and let them chose between the occasional golf ball or the above.  

[Shades]

Has anyone thought of installing solar panels near this green to heat the green during the day. I hear they have a real nasty glare that could be directed towards the aforemention property to gain maximum growth.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat et al:

During my days in the oil industry I ran into a similiar problem, albeit one that could be far more dangerous than getting hit with a golf ball.

I was serving a manager of a distribution terminal, a facility that goes way back.  So far back that the previous owner of the land sold the property to Mr. John D himself.

At the time (circa 1880), the property was Ohio farmland quite far from any development.  But, over the next 100 years the surrounding area gradually became populated and houses built amazingly close to the terminal, literally feet from the vapor recovery unit.

So, one day a homeowner decides he was going to start barbecuing right by the fence separating his property from the oil terminal.

Deliberately putting a fire so close to a vapor recovery unit is an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to do.  The entire neighborhood could be lost under an unlikely but possible combination of events.

It first we tried to reason with the homeowner, explaining the risk he was taking for himself, his family and his neighbors.
But, he didn't want to budge arguing that it was his "right" to barbecue where he wanted to.

A legal effort followed along with serious community pressure.  Eventually common sense prevailed, the homeowner stopped and plans were made for the company to buy some of the surrounding property to create a buffer between our operations and the community.

Granted, the homeowner had no understanding of the 100 year history of the place, but it was amazing how little mind he paid towards the argument of "who was there first", even when he could have killed himself by his sheer stupidity.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()