Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jim_Coleman on July 16, 2015, 11:20:56 PM

Title: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 16, 2015, 11:20:56 PM
    I was lucky enough to play Quaker Ridge this week - amazing experience.  Incredible course on such a small footprint.  We were given a very odd instruction, though.  We had to hit a ball provided by the club off the second tee, and were told that under no circumstances were we to retrieve it if we hit it out of bounds.  Turns out the club lost a lawsuit to a neighbor who built a $3+ million home bordering the course 90 years after the course was built.  A N.Y. appellate court ruled that Quaker Ridge constituted a nuisance to the homeowner because so many balls were sliced onto the property. 
   
     http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2014/09/20/quaker-ridge-scarsdale-lawsuit-errant-golf-balls/15990555/

  The club has now put up some pretty ugly trees and, I think, an ugly screen.  I can see this as being a more serious problem for a new course, although it seems pretty wrong to me.  Do architects consider this in their designs these days?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Tyler Kearns on July 16, 2015, 11:37:05 PM
Jim,


Yes, architects consider adjacent land uses (present & future) when designing golf courses in an effort to keep balls on the property and avoid future litigation.


In regards to Quaker Ridge, I am surprised the club did not built a new tee for that hole to the NE of the existing tee where the parking lot for the tennis courts currently reside.  Moving the tee closer to the property line usually has the affect of steering golfers into playing away from the out-of-bounds.  Further, if the trees along the property line of large, mature ones, it would also limit golfers ability to hit over them.


TK
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 17, 2015, 12:03:46 AM
Oh yeah, we consider it.  Get any three golf architects together, and there will be a story about someone getting sued for it (luckily, mostly second hand)  Most of us have testified on behalf of another architect on one kind of lawsuit or another, including hit houses.

There are no widely accepted written standards, because the insurers and architects want it that way.  But, there are a few books and articles out there lawyers can find.  We all agree standards are getting wider, but then the argument for an old course has to be that it was in standards when built.  And, you can't expect them to predict the future. In the QR case, I bet the older homes around the course were well back from the back lot line, but in this era of Mc Mansions, they are much closer, and how could Tillie have predicted that?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 17, 2015, 01:17:19 AM
Whatever happened to the doctrine of "coming to the nuisance"? This is like building a house next to a pig farm and then complaining that it always smells like shit.

I can see the homeowners possibly ultimately prevailing against the seller of the land/property (maybe - it's a matter of notice, but it's not like Quaker Ridge is hidden - I'd love to know if the marketing materials they saw or the sales pitch they heard trumpeted the fact that the house was on the course), but unless New York has some weird nuisance laws, I'd guess the club is neither liable for damages or permanently enjoined.

It's also interesting that there was previously a large screen that, by plaintiff's admission, prevented the balls from entering the property (which was knocked down in a storm in 2008), and that all efforts to replace the screen have been thwarted by the township/homeowners association. If that's true, I'd expect the ultimate result to be an order to replace the screen as it was, and a nominal award for the player trespassing.

The irony here is that if Quaker Ridge were to simply throw its hands up and sell to a developer, these people would be the first in line at the courthouse in an effort to enjoin that too.

The law shouldn't be used as a tool to protect people from their own stupidity. Buy a house on a golf course, expect balls in your yard.

*Not legal advice*
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Tom_Doak on July 17, 2015, 08:34:31 AM
This stuff happens all the time on famous American courses.  A few years ago we had to move a green at Essex County [Mass.] after a long and complicated lawsuit; in that one, the house was in the same place as it had been for 100 years, but a lawyer bought it and then put his kids' play house out near the boundary of the golf course, and started collecting golf balls.  [I don't think he put his kids out there, just the play equipment.]


Part of the solution there was to put a deed restriction on the house accepting the proximity of the [modified] golf course.  That should really be a condition for all houses along golf courses ... in "golf developments" especially ... but there is no way to make all the homeowners along Quaker Ridge put it into their deeds and possibly reduce the value of their homes for eventual re-sale.


I have also mentioned here before that anywhere else in the world I've worked [Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.], lawsuits like this don't happen ... the homeowner goes to court to complain, and the court just tells the golf course to change the hole.  Every club in Melbourne has dealt with boundary issues, some to the ruination of some of their best holes.  Their only other choice was to buy out all the neighbors.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: David_Tepper on July 17, 2015, 09:36:15 AM
The 3rd hole at Royal Dornoch was changed slightly less than 2 years ago to deal with such an issue.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sam Andrews on July 17, 2015, 01:46:54 PM
Hello all, my first post having been admitted to the hallowed forum recently.


There is some debate at Rye about the proximity of the Camber road to the 1st, 3rd, 10th and the practice ground. Certainly the rough has been extended on the left of the 3rd to encourage drives up the right hand side. I feel that a bunker would have a greater visual effect if we have to change things (the rough at Rye is a swine at the best of times).


Mind you, it is quite possible that any changes will be undone by our sibilant breezes. I have seen a ball driven from the 4th tee sail over the road — there was something of a gentle zephyr blowing at the time — and one club member claims to have hit the highway from all of the first five holes.


Perhaps more pertinent is the state of the player rather than the course. Given Rye members enthusiasm for 'lunch' I do sometimes wonder if those that have third party insurance would find it void under the drinking/driving laws.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Tom_Doak on July 17, 2015, 02:15:13 PM
There is some debate at Rye about the proximity of the Camber road to the 1st, 3rd, 10th and the practice ground. Certainly the rough has been extended on the left of the 3rd to encourage drives up the right hand side. I feel that a bunker would have a greater visual effect if we have to change things (the rough at Rye is a swine at the best of times).



Sam:


Believe it or not, I think roads have greater leeway in this system, because there is not a single party [the homeowner] who lines up to sue the club.  You would only be forced to make a change on the basis of an accident, followed by a lawsuit.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sam Andrews on July 17, 2015, 02:48:06 PM
Tom,


That is good news and I am sure that the many lawyers at Rye have been consulted. I do wonder, however, if in future courses will have to demonstrate due diligence in directing the errant shot away from the traffic by re-siting the tee, providing warning signage or more protection in the form of a hedge along the road. Trees at Rye would take a long time but they have recently planted some shrubs on the practice ground to catch a hook. Personally I now wait for a pause in the traffic when hitting from the 10th, not simply for fear of an uncharacteristic slice but also because of the inevitable shout of 'fore' or worse in mid backswing from passing pond life.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sam Andrews on July 17, 2015, 02:55:25 PM
Oh and I forgot to mention that I understand that the reason that the new green and tee were built at the 16th at Woking was in part because of a fear of balls flying through the hedge at the back of the green and into the road. It was also suggested the tee was in danger from wild approaches from the 15th. As a boy when I played there regularly I cannot remember anyone doing either, though I did hit one through an open window into the main bar behind the 14th green and was invited to play back out if I could afford the glazing bill if I failed!
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Wiggett on July 17, 2015, 05:49:04 PM
Moortown underwent a major redesign due to householders bordering the old 13th complaining about golf balls in their gardens. The galling thing about losing some of the great parts of this Dr. Mac gem was that the houses were built well after the course and two of the house owners even admitted that their houses were worth more because the golf course was there.

Jon
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Ian Andrew on July 17, 2015, 06:56:35 PM
In Canada, who came first, was for a long time used as a successful defense strategy.
One ruling against one club inner city Toronto club ended that.
That ruling now is used as precedence and all clubs are addressing their boundary issues here.


Many changes have been made in the last dozen years to address this issue.
You have to be able to prove that you've done all you can reasonably do to minimize the risk for an adjacent property.


In many instances the clubs have gone to netting.
Adjacent owners can't oppose netting if that's the route the club chooses.
While not pretty to look at, it does put the problem to an end.




As an aside...
 I always thought the issue of public safety was the one angle that the USGA could have used about going to a shorter ball and fighting threats of a lawsuit from the equipment companies.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 17, 2015, 07:13:49 PM
I am definitely in the minority on this subject.  I don't believe golfers should have the right to continuously bomb balls outside of their property simply because the course was there before the house...and I welcome cout intervention to prevent carelsss activities which endanger others.  Turn this around and see yourself as the neighbour getting bombarded.  A more apt analogy is if kids are constantly kicking/hitting balls over your fence.  Once in a while its not an issue, but at some point a line has to be drawn. Everyone has the right not be hassled by their neighbour(s) regardless of what existed first...and bombing balls off property is at the very least a hassle and quite possibly dangerous and a cause of property damage.  It should absolutely the be the responsibility of golf clubs to be good neighbours. And golfers wonder why they have a bad rep? ??? 


Ian, I would bet some cash that in places a golf club would not get away with ugly nets...and it isn't reasonable to reduce the value of a neighbour's property because a club is too cheap to effect a more permanent change to the situation which does not impinge on a neighbour in the way a tall net would.  Lets face it, golfers have a duty to buck up and take responsibility for their actions, but in a good faith manner which doesn't unduly impinge on neighbours. If that means altering a golf course...so be it.  Golf is small beer.

Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Tom_Doak on July 17, 2015, 07:55:57 PM
I am definitely in the minority on this subject.  I don't believe golfers should have the right to continuously bomb balls outside of their property simply because the course was there before the house...and I welcome court intervention to prevent carelsss activities which endanger others.


Sean:


None of us wants to see anyone get hurt.


By the same token, I've seen a couple of examples of out-and-out extortion by "homeowners" in my time as a designer.


Are the risks really increasing, or are people just more quick to sue to get their way?  Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Nigel Islam on July 17, 2015, 11:03:24 PM
Jim,
     Is Quaker Ridge using the newly constructed tee yet?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 17, 2015, 11:14:02 PM
Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Especially when, by virtue of the property being on a golf course and the consequent preservation of open space, that same homeowner sees the benefit of increased property values.

The trespass is another story. As is a particularly dangerous situation that is either abnormal or unforeseeable. But in the typical situation, people shouldn't/wouldn't buy a house next to a river and then complain when it floods.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Nigel Islam on July 17, 2015, 11:28:07 PM
Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Especially when, by virtue of the property being on a golf course and the consequent preservation of open space, that same homeowner sees the benefit of increased property values.

The trespass is another story. As is a particularly dangerous situation that is either abnormal or unforeseeable. But in the typical situation, people shouldn't/wouldn't buy a house next to a river and then complain when it floods.


Jon,
    The way I understood the story is the plaintiff claimed to have no knowledge the course existed. Difficult to believe, but apparently not as difficult to prove.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 18, 2015, 01:53:22 AM
Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Especially when, by virtue of the property being on a golf course and the consequent preservation of open space, that same homeowner sees the benefit of increased property values.

The trespass is another story. As is a particularly dangerous situation that is either abnormal or unforeseeable. But in the typical situation, people shouldn't/wouldn't buy a house next to a river and then complain when it floods.


Jon,
    The way I understood the story is the plaintiff claimed to have no knowledge the course existed. Difficult to believe, but apparently not as difficult to prove.

According to the actual complaint in the case, the plaintiff pleads that there was a large net there previously.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/408/19765190226_f01dabf0fb_d.jpg)

He does not appear to allege lack of knowledge. Which I think must mean that the lot was heavily marketed as bordering the golf course.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 18, 2015, 03:33:21 AM
I am definitely in the minority on this subject.  I don't believe golfers should have the right to continuously bomb balls outside of their property simply because the course was there before the house...and I welcome court intervention to prevent carelsss activities which endanger others.


Sean:


None of us wants to see anyone get hurt.


By the same token, I've seen a couple of examples of out-and-out extortion by "homeowners" in my time as a designer.


Are the risks really increasing, or are people just more quick to sue to get their way?  Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?


Tom


No, I believe the onus should be on the golf club to control its activities so as to not impinge on neighbours. Knowing a golf club is next door prior to purchasing a house shouldn't relinquish the expectation of safety and hassle free existence.  I wonder what the club would think if the neighbour started hitting balls toward golfers on the course?  The shoe on the other foot doesn't sound too great.  I think in the long term golf clubs will lose this battle more and more.  Many golf courses in the UK are changed for these sorts of reasons or drivers etc are banned on some holes.  Its a shame, but a consequence of more development and golfers failing to exercise restraint when dangerous situations arise. 

The odd ball flyng over the property line isn't an issue (so long as there is no damage to people or property), but once a pattern arises, clubs are in jeapordy of being taken to task and should be proactive.  I think what has happened in the past is many neighbours have been lenient with clubs (and clubs have overly depended on this good will) just as they would be in general..in an effort to be good and reasonable neighbours.  These days though, more and more people won't put up with this kind of thing.

Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Thomas Dai on July 18, 2015, 05:00:46 AM
........Its a shame, but a consequence of more development and golfers failing to exercise restraint when dangerous situations arise......


and of the R&A/USGA in failing to grasp the issue of restraint on equipment progress. There are courses which have had to make adjustments that would not have been necessary in prior times as players, even top players, wouldn't be hitting it (offline) so far with previous generation equipment.


atb
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Pat Burke on July 18, 2015, 09:20:21 AM
Couldn't the club just buy helmets for the idiots that built a house next to an existing fairway?


I can absolutely understand if a course came in AFTER something was built.
How can there be no assumption of risk for this?


Funny who people's stupid decisions have to be fixed by inconveniencing others
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Chris DeNigris on July 18, 2015, 10:11:29 AM

 Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

It should assume ALL the liability.  Do your due diligence and take responsibility for your decision, whether your expectations are met or not.  I made a questionable decision and bought in the middle of a fairway but on the left side- thinking that all I had to do was avoid the hacker slicers.  I didn't realize how many hookers there were at my club :) (or possibly southpaws).   It just wasn't their fault that I decided to live there. While I appreciated the occasional note of apology left next to a broken window, along with the more occasional offer to pay- I never felt right in taking them up on the offer.

The guy at QR and thousands like him surrounding some of our favorite courses simply think they're more important than everyone else and don't care how much pain they cause as a result of their selfish behavior. Sad.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 18, 2015, 12:48:48 PM
........Its a shame, but a consequence of more development and golfers failing to exercise restraint when dangerous situations arise......


and of the R&A/USGA in failing to grasp the issue of restraint on equipment progress. There are courses which have had to make adjustments that would not have been necessary in prior times as players, even top players, wouldn't be hitting it (offline) so far with previous generation equipment.


atb

I don't think this is true, really.  Much of new tech is supposed to allow average players to hit it straighter than old clubs on off center hits.  As to shots flying further, it really only happens to any large degree with near pro level players, who rarely hitt off line.

Granted, there are a small percentage of golfers who are long (and supposedly longer now) and wild, but we would have to see where this house was along the fairway to assume that.

Funny case, really, in that it was the homeowners tree that fell, causing others to fall, and yet its not his fault, and act of God, or anything other than the golf courses responsibility.  When you rely on trees, this can happen.  They could have split the cost of nets, but the homeowner would have hated that, too.

One of the funniest lawsuits addressing the rights of who came first was in Chicago, where Oprah's near north side neighborhood had gentrified and the condo owners sued a 100 year old chocolate factory for noxious odors.  I find warm chocolate to smell quite nice, but might get tired of it. I think the factory stayed, but not sure if it is still in biz.

Anyone can allege anything.  Here in  Texas, I got sued by a sod supplier for rejecting obviously dead sod, and allowing the contractor to use another supplier.  In the interrogatory phase, they asked ten questions, all false accusations (other than asking how much insurance I had) and I thought I was done.  The judge gave them a month to think up new accusations.  Courts really do favor hearing the case all the way through in most cases, as its the complainers right to a day in court.  Whether we agree or not, it can be frustrating.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Neil Regan on July 18, 2015, 01:58:31 PM





]
...
According to the actual complaint in the case, the plaintiff pleads that there was a large net there previously.


(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/408/19765190226_f01dabf0fb_d.jpg)


...


Jon,
  If the plaintiff pleads that there was a large net there previously,
      your quote does not indicate that.


 

Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 18, 2015, 09:17:39 PM
Nigel:  Is Quaker Ridge using a new tee on 2?  This was my first time there, so I can't say for sure; but I don't think so.  They stuck tee markers 275 yards from the green, and we played from there.  Mike Davis would have been proud.  It was an outing though, so I don't know what the members do.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: corey miller on July 19, 2015, 09:48:32 AM

Kudos to Old Oaks  ;) .  They actually let these litigious people join their club while a lawsuit was in the hopper against Quaker Ridge?  What's up with that. ???   

I hope they don't have many neighbors. 
 
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Doug Siebert on July 19, 2015, 03:51:25 PM
My "don't get mad, get even side" says they should put up a giant ugly fence on the edge of the golf course's property that completely ruins the property owner's view of the course.  If the architectural "value" of the golf course is going to be damaged by idiot property owners, make them feel the pain by reducing their property value!
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 19, 2015, 05:44:48 PM
Here's a pic of the rear of the  house in question from Zillow:


(http://ak.t0.tiles.virtualearth.net/tiles/cmd/ObliqueHybrid?a=03201011100-21496-19-34&g=3635)


There's a pic of the house in this article:


http://scarsdale10583.com/about-joomla/the-community/4098-nys-supreme-court-reverses-lower-court-decision-regarding-leon-behar-and-quaker-ridge-golf-club
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 20, 2015, 05:23:58 AM
I agree with Sean. Everyone should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property irrespective of whether the neighbours were there first, and I believe that more or less sums up the law in Scotland. Here nobody gains financially out of a dispute and if it goes to court the affected owner is seeking what is termed here as an interim interdict. The interim interdict is in effect a court order preventing the club from any further actions continuing the nuisance. More often than not, that involves the club having to take measures that costs them money but there is no compensation paid to the affected owner, unless of course he is suing for compensation for damage done which I can't remember being done.


As an aside, historical courses such as the Old Course are perhaps less at risk even though clearly the case for getting an interim interdict against many of their holes would be a slam dunk. An obvious example would be the 17th but also the 18th. It's not likely to happen for obvious commercial reasons but that's not to say you might not get some cantankerous old geezer with no interest in golf deciding to be awkward.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Chris DeNigris on July 20, 2015, 09:34:03 AM
I agree with Sean. Everyone should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property irrespective of whether the neighbours were there first, and I believe that more or less sums up the law in Scotland.

Yes, but do they have a right not to naturally interface with a golf course that was there when they knowingly and willfully put themselves in that position? Should they be able to gain and enjoy the advantages that the proximity of the golf course affords but not sacrifice anything in return?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 20, 2015, 11:57:23 AM
I agree with Sean. Everyone should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property irrespective of whether the neighbours were there first, and I believe that more or less sums up the law in Scotland. Here nobody gains financially out of a dispute and if it goes to court the affected owner is seeking what is termed here as an interim interdict. The interim interdict is in effect a court order preventing the club from any further actions continuing the nuisance. More often than not, that involves the club having to take measures that costs them money but there is no compensation paid to the affected owner, unless of course he is suing for compensation for damage done which I can't remember being done.


As an aside, historical courses such as the Old Course are perhaps less at risk even though clearly the case for getting an interim interdict against many of their holes would be a slam dunk. An obvious example would be the 17th but also the 18th. It's not likely to happen for obvious commercial reasons but that's not to say you might not get some cantankerous old geezer with no interest in golf deciding to be awkward.


Niall

Sometimes I wonder why the US court system can't emulate things like that...... have a finding that you correct a problem, but aren't paying damages, if there really aren't any (like a death, or lost eye)  Also, I wish we could have three verdicts in the civil suits (because they will never adopt the loser pays court fees system here) - for the plaintiff, corrections, no damages, for the plaintiff with damages, for the defendant, with no damages, or for the defendant, and a penalty for "frivolous complaint", so at least there would be some chance that a plaintiff could be punished for a frivolous suit.

BTW, for all we complain about lawsuits here, a few years back, we discussed how few real lawsuits there are in the golf industry, but we fear them anyway, due to horror stories.  Also, over 50% find in favor of the defendant, and it is much higher here in TX.

May have told this story, but a few years ago a Ft. Worth attorney contacted me as an expert witness in a golf cart accident.  Wasn't really interested, but told him I would meet him.  I knew I knew him somewhere.  After discussion, I realized I was the jury foreman on one of his cases, where a high school student had pulled a chair out from under his client, and years later, she claimed it cost her a dance career, and it was clear from testimony there were other factors.  At any rate, we concluded in about an hour that she was due a lifetime supply of Advil, which we calculated at about $5K.  This was "Friday afternoon" jury logic, but we all agreed quickly.

That lawyer said he recalled every word I said when he asked the judge to poll the jury.  I spoke first and said "you could throw a blanket over all our initial opinions, we were that close....."  Judge closed up shop. Conclusion - Texas juries are pretty tough on that kind of lawsuit.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 20, 2015, 12:21:25 PM
Yes, but do they have a right not to naturally interface with a golf course that was there when they knowingly and willfully put themselves in that position?

I don't see why it makes a difference if the course was there first or not. Because a course is 200 years old its members have a right to bombard neighbours whose houses are 10 years old?  Does this mean golf clubs have a defacto 30, 40, 60 or 70 yard buffer in which that land can be abused by its members?

Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Pat Burke on July 20, 2015, 12:52:46 PM
I've asked this before..
So, I can buy one of the houses to the right of 18 at Pebble Beach, and make them change the
hole after a series of resort golfers actually might slice it??


I just don't agree I guess.



Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Kalen Braley on July 20, 2015, 01:23:02 PM
I don't buy the argument that in the case when the golf course was there 1st, there is an exepectation of not being bombarded if you either build or buy a house right next to a course.
 
If you buy a house next to a highway, should you have an expectation of a quiet back/front yard?
If you buy a house next to a stadium, should you have an expectation there will not be loud crowd noises and bright lights on some nights?
If you buy a house next to a busy mall, should you have an expectation of a traffic free/low traffic neighborhood?
If you buy a house next to a rubbish dump, should you have an expectation of a pleasant smelling odor all the time?
 
This lack of common sense, being applied in obvious situations is what chaps my hide sometimes.  You buy a house next to a course, expect some errant balls....its as simple as that...
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 20, 2015, 01:48:28 PM
Folks need to make anologies which


1. have happened......


2. threaten personal safety


3. threaten property


Its not a question of may, but does...


If courses need more space than their boundaries allow they should either alter the course or buy more land. This is no different than if I am hitting balls in my garden which constantly leave my property. I don't believe that people give up the right to be safe on their property no matter what is next door.




Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Chris DeNigris on July 20, 2015, 02:04:33 PM
Sean- What part of "If you don't want to have golf balls occasionally fly into your backyard, don't buy a house on a golf course"  just doesn't make sense?  :)

It's really just as simple as taking responsibility for your actions.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Kalen Braley on July 20, 2015, 03:12:27 PM
Sean,
 
All of the analogies I presented I have seen first hand.  While they aren't threats to property or personal safety, they certainly understand what they are getting into.
 
P.S.  Speaking of personal safety and property, does that mean anyone buying a placeo in a bad/old run down neighborhood should have an expectation that their house won't be broken into?  If I move into the 'hood can I sue my neighbor for being a gangster/thug?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 20, 2015, 04:50:09 PM
    It seems to me that a combination of "due diligence" and "assumption of the risk" should insulate courses that came first.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 20, 2015, 06:08:55 PM
I spoke with the Behar's lawyer today. The current status of last year's decision is in appellate court limbo as the order of reversal has not been deemed a final order by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals. Apparently, the trial judge who granted the Motion for Summary Judgment did not remand the case for a hearing on damages in his Order. Sort of Kafkaesque IMO.


It should be noted that there is another pending action against the developer who sold the property.


Why QR never bought the acreage next to their course for almost 90 years to control development  AND moved the tee once development happened is beyond me.


Perhaps Brad Klein can chime in here.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 21, 2015, 05:01:12 AM
I agree with Sean. Everyone should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property irrespective of whether the neighbours were there first, and I believe that more or less sums up the law in Scotland.

Yes, but do they have a right not to naturally interface with a golf course that was there when they knowingly and willfully put themselves in that position? Should they be able to gain and enjoy the advantages that the proximity of the golf course affords but not sacrifice anything in return?


Chris


I'm not sure I follow your first question but if you mean should the homeowner have the right to peaceful enjoyment of his own property then frankly yes. If the homeowner is willing to put up with a few balls coming into his property then all well and good but he absolutely has the right to peaceful enjoyment and in that respect I think the law is absolutely right. It would be arrogance of monumental proportions for a golf course or any other use for that matter, that took the stance of we were here first and therefore we can violate the neighbours peaceful enjoyment of their own property.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Wiggett on July 21, 2015, 06:39:00 AM
I agree with Sean. Everyone should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property irrespective of whether the neighbours were there first, and I believe that more or less sums up the law in Scotland.

Yes, but do they have a right not to naturally interface with a golf course that was there when they knowingly and willfully put themselves in that position? Should they be able to gain and enjoy the advantages that the proximity of the golf course affords but not sacrifice anything in return?


Chris


I'm not sure I follow your first question but if you mean should the homeowner have the right to peaceful enjoyment of his own property then frankly yes. If the homeowner is willing to put up with a few balls coming into his property then all well and good but he absolutely has the right to peaceful enjoyment and in that respect I think the law is absolutely right. It would be arrogance of monumental proportions for a golf course or any other use for that matter, that took the stance of we were here first and therefore we can violate the neighbours peaceful enjoyment of their own property.


Niall

Niall,

would that mean that if I bought a house close by an airport you believe I could insist on the airport taking off in a direction other than over my house even though I was perfectly aware of it prior to purchase? I cannot agree.

Jon
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 21, 2015, 07:26:29 AM
Jon


There is a world of difference between a plane flying overhead and a jumbo jet landing in your garden. I think you would be hard pressed to prove nuisance.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Wiggett on July 21, 2015, 09:56:38 AM
Niall,

Having lived directly under a flight path in the past I can assure you it is very, very invasive much more so than the odd golf ball.

Jon
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Kalen Braley on July 21, 2015, 11:25:37 AM
Niall,
 
I wish you could have seen this place I worked at in San Jose several years ago.  Planes flew very low, right over it as they landed and took off.  The entire building shook and you couldn't have a conversation for a good 15 seconds.  And this would occur several times per hour.
 
I would take a few golf balls in my backyard any day over that....
 
 
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Wayne_Kozun on July 21, 2015, 11:43:03 AM
The club I belong to, Scarboro Golf and Country Club in Toronto, has an 18th hole that plays over an increasing busy road - aptly named, albeit with incorrect spelling, Scarborough Golf Club Road.  There is fencing to protect the traffic from golf balls but occasionally a golfer skies his tee shot and it comes down on a car.  There is a worry that at some time in the future legal issues may cause us to have to do something more drastic to the hole, which would be very hard given the lake of land and proximity of the hole to a creek and a level railroad crossing.  Other than the fact that you have to hit your tee shot over the road it is a very good par 4.

By the way, the course was built 103 years ago when the road was, at best, a cow path.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 21, 2015, 11:46:07 AM
Kalen


I was a member at Moray Golf Club for a couple of years so know the issues very well.


Jon


For many house owners, having a few balls land in their garden might not be an issue, particularly if they don't get golfers climbing over the fence to retrieve the ball. Many simply come to an accommodation with the club that the club reimburses them for any damage no questions asked, hence many clubs request that their members let them know if the hit any balls out of the property. It also lets the club know how often it's happening and whether the frequency is likely to constitute a nuisance. I've no idea what the freshold is.


Airplanes are a different consideration. I suspect that the fact they are allowed to fly over or through private property is governed by legislation allowing that to happen, presumably on the grounds of the common good. That's a question for a lawyer.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Thomas Dai on July 21, 2015, 12:24:36 PM
Just curious, but how does this operate viz-a-viz Right to Roam in Scotland? Can neighbours etc roam across golf courses and can golfers etc roam across adjoining land to retrieve balls etc?
atb
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Ryan Coles on July 21, 2015, 01:13:35 PM
Sean,
 
All of the analogies I presented I have seen first hand.  While they aren't threats to property or personal safety, they certainly understand what they are getting into.
 
P.S.  Speaking of personal safety and property, does that mean anyone buying a placeo in a bad/old run down neighborhood should have an expectation that their house won't be broken into?  If I move into the 'hood can I sue my neighbor for being a gangster/thug?


Is that you, Donald?


A terrible analogy.


Even the poor have rights for the time being.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 21, 2015, 04:53:09 PM
   Wayne:  As far as a road that is built next to an existing golf course, I would think the liability is with the builder of the road - presumably a county or state, not the golf course.  After all, the government could have condemned the course's property and removed the hazard.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: David_Tepper on July 21, 2015, 05:05:20 PM
"Can neighbours etc roam across golf courses and can golfers etc roam across adjoining land to retrieve balls etc?"

Thomas D. -

I don't know about the latter, but my understanding regarding the former in Scotland is that neighbors and others can (and do!) roam across golf courses, especially as a number of courses in Scotland sit on "common good land."

I have also been told (by a source I believe to be reliable) that, while playing in Scotland, if a golf ball you hit strikes someone roaming at random across a golf course, you could be liable for damages. Could be a case of "all the worst." ;)

DT
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Wayne_Kozun on July 21, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
   Wayne:  As far as a road that is built next to an existing golf course, I would think the liability is with the builder of the road - presumably a county or state, not the golf course.  After all, the government could have condemned the course's property and removed the hazard.
I am not sure what the exact history is but the road is actually through the golf course.  Perhaps the club granted the city a right of way or the city expropriated the land from the club.


There actually was a significant court case between the City of Scarborough and the Scarboro Golf and Country Club regarding riparian rights.  It is now one of the most cited cases on riparian rights in Canada.  The outcome is that the city is responsible to pay for erosion on the golf course in perpetuity as the urbanization of the city of Scarborough (now part of the City of Toronto) led to the construction of storm sewers that fed water into the creek that runs through the course.  The creek is now much wider and every few years there is major flooding and erosion that damages the course.  So when you do something to a river/creek that affects people downstream of you then you are liable for damages.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Tim_Weiman on July 21, 2015, 11:25:54 PM
Not to digress and hijack this thread, but golf courses are not the businesses facing the issue being discussed here.


I was the manager of an oil terminal on farm land that was purchased by John D Rockefeller back in the 1870s. Amazingly, Standard Oil's property records had the documentation - deed and contract signed by John D himself.


Rockefeller obviously thought it was the right place to build a terminal - isolated on farm land with nothing else around. But, that was the 1870s. By the time I became terminal manager in the 1980s, homes didn't just surround the terminal, they were dangerously close. More than that one neighbor insisted on lighting fires for a cook out 20-30 feet from the terminal vapor recovery unit.


A spark flying the wrong way wouldn't just kill him, it could burn down the neighborhood.


When we suggested it might be better to have the fire on the other side of his house, the neighbor was quite indignant we were infringing on his rights.


We could shut down the terminal for all he cared.


Nothing ever happened. The terminal and the houses are still there. Don't know about the cookouts.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Wiggett on July 22, 2015, 12:09:18 AM
There is no right to roam across a private garden in Scotland.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 22, 2015, 04:03:35 AM
For all those that don't seem to accept that a property owner has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their own property, let me ask you this, what if the house was there first and the golf course came along after ? What if the house owner was in the habit of simply throwing his rubbish over the fence into the golf course property. Imagine if you will the greenkeeper having to clear debris from the green every morning after the house owner has had a party.


Do you really think the golf course would have to put up with that just because the house was there first ?


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Wiggett on July 22, 2015, 04:45:56 AM
Niall,

I know what you mean but that would be littering. If the course were built after the house then there would need to be enough distance allowed which would be at least 75 yards from the center of the fairway. Therefor logic should require the same in the opposite case but it rarely does.

Jon
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 22, 2015, 07:28:15 AM
For all those that don't seem to accept that a property owner has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their own property, let me ask you this, what if the house was there first and the golf course came along after ? What if the house owner was in the habit of simply throwing his rubbish over the fence into the golf course property. Imagine if you will the greenkeeper having to clear debris from the green every morning after the house owner has had a party.


Do you really think the golf course would have to put up with that just because the house was there first ?


Niall

No, but more aptly, if the homeowner was there first and had on his property a number of beehives kept for honey, and the owner of the course knew about the beehives going in and built the course abutting his property and the hives, I would expect the golf course to have to put up with the occasional bother from those bees.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Ian Andrew on July 22, 2015, 07:40:12 AM
Sean,

There are lots of examples in Toronto alone, most involve driving ranges, but many others are boundary holes
I've given you the one that changes the legal landscape for us already

Many don't proceed because people understand that their proximity does include a small element of risk.
They expect golf balls to occasionally come into their property
If they didn't, course would be encircled with netting structures

The problem lies in the fact all these courses are landlocked by housing and roads
And technology has taken them from safe in the 1990's to unsafe with the advancements in technology over of the last 25 years

Every Master Plan I work on for a city course now has to address some sort of boundary issues
It's removed a lot of the fun of this work because we then also assume the liability of the hole

In many ways, I think golfers have no idea of the legal issues architects must bear
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 22, 2015, 07:55:43 AM
Ian


It is my understanding (and my contention all along) that we are not talking about occasional balls flying over the boundary.  Someone said 60+ balls were collected in a month or something like that.  I could understand 60+ balls in maybe 3-4 years, but not during a summer.  To me, if true, this kind of activity is a clear pattern of abuse and if I were a judge the club would be dead in my sites for a serious hand slapping if anybody were to be injured. 


I never advocated zero tolerance for this sort of thing, but I do think golfers have such a poor reputation as fat cats who care little about their neighbours and the environment that clubs should be going put of their way to mitigate these sorts of situations in a way in which clubs are seen to make the compromises.  A little bit of good will could stand clubs in good sted when tough times come. 


Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 22, 2015, 08:25:25 AM
Ian


I recently made comment on here on the possible safety issues for a blind hole or semi-blind hole and whether the gca had good PI cover and the architect took exception to my comments. Partly they were in jest but partly making a serious point about safety issues and the liability of the architect. Not sure if the architect took umbrage at the suggestion that his design was unsafe or that he was liable but I was happy to delete the offending post in order to keep the peace.


Nevertheless the issue remains and whether it's the club or the architect who is on the line, there is no denying that an awful lot of clubs have had to address the problem of safety and are continuing to address it. As you say, at many older clubs the course was built in the countryside but since then they have been built round. Just thinking about it, 4 of the 5 clubs I've been a member of have had to redesign a hole due to boundary issues. Given the majority of courses in this country (Scotland) are probably in urban or edge of urban areas, I suspect that 4 out of 5 might not be too far away from a representative sample of clubs who have been forced in to making changes due to boundary issues.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 22, 2015, 10:53:44 AM
   Niall:  Here's some unsolicited advice.  Whenever you say or write something that is "in jest, but partly making a serious point," you will always be taken seriously, even if what you say happens to be funny.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: J Sadowsky on July 22, 2015, 11:11:49 AM
Whatever happened to the doctrine of "coming to the nuisance"? This is like building a house next to a pig farm and then complaining that it always smells like shit.

I can see the homeowners possibly ultimately prevailing against the seller of the land/property (maybe - it's a matter of notice, but it's not like Quaker Ridge is hidden - I'd love to know if the marketing materials they saw or the sales pitch they heard trumpeted the fact that the house was on the course), but unless New York has some weird nuisance laws, I'd guess the club is neither liable for damages or permanently enjoined.

It's also interesting that there was previously a large screen that, by plaintiff's admission, prevented the balls from entering the property (which was knocked down in a storm in 2008), and that all efforts to replace the screen have been thwarted by the township/homeowners association. If that's true, I'd expect the ultimate result to be an order to replace the screen as it was, and a nominal award for the player trespassing.

The irony here is that if Quaker Ridge were to simply throw its hands up and sell to a developers a golf course, expect balls in your yard.

*Not legal advice*


The problem here is that, absent adverse possession, nobody has a right to physically enter the property (or place tangible items there).  From a legal standpoint, the fact that people have historically tresspassed upon another's land with persons (or golf balls) does not give them or others a legal right to do so in the future.  Whether the golf course should be responsible for the conduct of its members is a separate question which, in this case, has been answered.

Smells and air pollution are far less likely to be considered a tresspass due to its physical nature.  Solid and liquid pollutants are another thing - good luck arguing you can continue dumping your pig poop on the neighbor's land because that's what you did before he bought the land.


EDIT:  One point - a single sliced golf ball probably wouldn't be considered a trespass since trespass requires a particular state of mind (called "willfulness").  But if the course was aware that 60 balls were going over the property line on a monthly basis, and did nothing about it, that certainly is sufficient to show that the golf club had the requisite state of mind.  If I was defending the Course, and without looking up any caselaw to see if this argument would fly, I would have argued that the club's state of mind is irrelevant because the club isn't the one trespassing.  But I think the counterargument is that the club is telling people to take a golf ball and hit it in a particular direction with the knowledge that some balls will interfere with the homeowner's property rights.  That is probably a trespass under state law.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: J Sadowsky on July 22, 2015, 11:14:49 AM
For all those that don't seem to accept that a property owner has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their own property, let me ask you this, what if the house was there first and the golf course came along after ? What if the house owner was in the habit of simply throwing his rubbish over the fence into the golf course property. Imagine if you will the greenkeeper having to clear debris from the green every morning after the house owner has had a party.


Do you really think the golf course would have to put up with that just because the house was there first ?


Niall

No, but more aptly, if the homeowner was there first and had on his property a number of beehives kept for honey, and the owner of the course knew about the beehives going in and built the course abutting his property and the hives, I would expect the golf course to have to put up with the occasional bother from those bees.

Wild bees can't be a trespass, but if his negligent care of the bees led to injury, those injured (including at least a for-profit golf course, if lost revenue can be traced to the negligence under a theory the law calls "proximate cause") by the negligence can bring a tort claim against the honeymaker.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: J Sadowsky on July 22, 2015, 11:15:57 AM
Niall,

I know what you mean but that would be littering. If the course were built after the house then there would need to be enough distance allowed which would be at least 75 yards from the center of the fairway. Therefor logic should require the same in the opposite case but it rarely does.

Jon


Average GCAer:  But 75 yards from the center of the fairway should still be fairway!

(I kid, I kid.)
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 22, 2015, 12:50:42 PM
For all those that don't seem to accept that a property owner has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their own property, let me ask you this, what if the house was there first and the golf course came along after ? What if the house owner was in the habit of simply throwing his rubbish over the fence into the golf course property. Imagine if you will the greenkeeper having to clear debris from the green every morning after the house owner has had a party.


Do you really think the golf course would have to put up with that just because the house was there first ?


Niall

No, but more aptly, if the homeowner was there first and had on his property a number of beehives kept for honey, and the owner of the course knew about the beehives going in and built the course abutting his property and the hives, I would expect the golf course to have to put up with the occasional bother from those bees.


Jon


With respect but I really don't see how your analogy is more apt. You can't really control bees unless you contain them, however where the club knows that a percentage of golfers playing a certain hole will land their ball in a neighbouring property then it is clearly within their power to do something about that and that is to either make changes to the hole or stop playing the hole, such that the nuisance of balls landing in the neighbouring property is stopped.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 22, 2015, 02:03:45 PM
Niall:

You can't control bees unless you contain them or move them, just as you can't control golfers errant tee shots unless you contain them (via net or other barricade) or move them (by altering the hole). In each instance, a pre-existing condition was open and obvious at the time the later-arriving neighbor bought and began making use of his property. I don't see why, so long as the pre-existing condition did not increase substantially in frequency or danger subsequent to the later neighbors' arrival, the neighbor should not have to live with the burden (and accompanying benefit) that was present and known to him at the time he arrived.

Note - as I stated above, I consider the errant tee shots into the property to be entirely separate from the trespass that occurs when players attempt to retrieve their balls from the neighbor's property. That absolutely should be actionable by the property owner and I have no problem with the individuals (and potentially the club if it was aware of the issue and took no steps to curtail it) being held liable for it.

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 22, 2015, 02:31:26 PM
Jon and others,


This was not a pre-existing house that was purchased by the Behars.  It was constructed by a developer who purchased the acreage and subdivided the land and built new housing.
Th
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Chris DeNigris on July 22, 2015, 02:41:30 PM
Steve-

Did the homeowner know there was a golf course adjoining his property when he purchased it?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 22, 2015, 02:46:48 PM
Chris,

Not sure. It's not mentioned in this article:

http://scarsdale10583.com/about-joomla/the-community/4098-nys-supreme-court-reverses-lower-court-decision-regarding-leon-behar-and-quaker-ridge-golf-club

Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Pat Burke on July 22, 2015, 04:23:47 PM
I've bought two house near golf courses.  Both of them no where near
an area of golf ball impact (behind tees and far offset).
A player would have to turn around and aim at my house (and be pretty good) to hit it.
I chose the location in order to NOT have this impact.
I also had to sign a disclosure on closing the house that golf balls could intrude on our property.


Had I made the choice to live on the fairway, it would have been my responsibility to protect
my family and home.  SOmehow, in this day and age, the same decision now creates an
entitlement that someone else has to fix the mistake we are responsible for.



Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 22, 2015, 04:45:53 PM
It should be noted that the Behars attorney was successful in this case against Winged Foot:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/nyregion/15golf.html?_r=0
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Wayne_Kozun on July 22, 2015, 04:49:47 PM
Looking at the hole in question on Google Maps it looks like there is vacant space behind the green that looks like a pile of dirt, at least from overhead, and then a turf nursery.  Wouldn't it be possible to move the green back 50 yards or so and move the tee up as well.  That would put the homes out of play and keep the hole paying pretty much the same, unless there are topographical changes that you cannot tell from an aerial photo.


https://www.google.ca/maps/place/8+Brittany+Cl,+Scarsdale,+NY+10583,+USA/@40.9709844,-73.7593425,507m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c293dac5b3356f:0xc5f85201701d02f (https://www.google.ca/maps/place/8+Brittany+Cl,+Scarsdale,+NY+10583,+USA/@40.9709844,-73.7593425,507m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c293dac5b3356f:0xc5f85201701d02f)
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on July 22, 2015, 04:59:56 PM
Wayne,


Seems like a solution to me. I'm sure the club can afford it and their lawyers and insurance company wouldn't mind; however the case would remain open on the claim for damages if ever a hearing on that matter can be scheduled. .
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 23, 2015, 04:40:57 AM
Niall:

You can't control bees unless you contain them or move them, just as you can't control golfers errant tee shots unless you contain them (via net or other barricade) or move them (by altering the hole). In each instance, a pre-existing condition was open and obvious at the time the later-arriving neighbor bought and began making use of his property. I don't see why, so long as the pre-existing condition did not increase substantially in frequency or danger subsequent to the later neighbors' arrival, the neighbor should not have to live with the burden (and accompanying benefit) that was present and known to him at the time he arrived.

Note - as I stated above, I consider the errant tee shots into the property to be entirely separate from the trespass that occurs when players attempt to retrieve their balls from the neighbor's property. That absolutely should be actionable by the property owner and I have no problem with the individuals (and potentially the club if it was aware of the issue and took no steps to curtail it) being held liable for it.

Just my two cents.


Jon


I'm amazed at you and others who think you have the right to invade and effectively use someone elses property just because you owned your property before they did, or use of their property ie. landing golf balls in it, predates them building a house on it. Tell me, how do you acquire such property rights, that you can effectively invade and use a neighbours property without their consent ? Is that the law in the US ?, because I can assure you it's not the law in Scotland thankfully.


Also, what's so different about going to collect a ball in a neighbours property and hitting it into it. It's still invading their property.


Niall



Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 23, 2015, 07:17:11 AM
Just the differences of opinion here show why these types of lawsuits happen and will continue.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 23, 2015, 07:22:16 AM
I agree Jeff even though I do find it barmy that folks think it is okay for golfers to bomb a property because the course was there first.  Sure, I wouldn't buy a property right on a course because I know how barmy golfers are... ;)


Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 23, 2015, 08:22:25 AM
To me, the real problem is old courses. "Standards" for distance separation between golf centerlines and property lines have increased nearly constantly from 1960 on.  It was 125 feet, then 150, 160, 175, and now 200 feet is not uncommon.  So, we can find a lot of courses that were seemingly fine (and there are still a lot of courses with less separation that don't have constant problems) and now they aren't.

Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 23, 2015, 08:23:31 AM
I wouldn't hesitate to own a house on the edge of a course in Scotland, precisely because I know the court will uphold my rights.


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 23, 2015, 01:20:12 PM
To be clear, I don't think that a property owner should have to put up with golfers "bombing" it at his home or yard. And I certainly don't think that a property owner should have to put up with members trespassing on their lawns.

What I do think is that people should be required to take a little personal responsibility before purchasing a $3.7 million dollar home on the border of a fairway to ensure that the existing conditions -- which were clearly obvious and there long before the house was built -- are ones they can live with.

Maybe it's me and this is a novel opinion. I live in the heart of a major city on a central artery, so I'm used to the inevitable collision of other's property rights with my own, and I'm used to tolerating the conditions that existed long before I moved in here. There are substantial benefits to living where I live, and there are significant drawbacks as well. As I imagine there would be to living on a golf course.

But just as I wouldn't expect the tavern on the corner of my block to shut down at 9pm because the noise from its patrons infringes on the quiet enjoyment of my deck in the evenings, I can't side with a home owner who knowingly* buys a house adjacent to a fairway, enjoys the benefits of living on a course and the advantages of guaranteed open space the site entails, but then sues because he doesn't feel like he should have to tolerate the (mild, in my view) drawbacks that come with those benefits.

But hey, that's just me.

*if the property owner somehow was unaware that his house was bordering a fairway and was oblivious to the fact that golf balls may intrude on his land at the time of purchase, I might be more sympathetic. But in that instance, his beef should be with the person who sold him the land/property, and I note that he is currently pursuing a lawsuit to that end as well.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 27, 2015, 06:30:42 AM
Jon


Don't your first and last paragraphs contradict each other ? In other words, he shouldn't have to put up with it but on the other hand he should !


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 27, 2015, 07:39:45 AM
Yes Jon, it is a strange argument.  You are asking the home owner to be responsible for the actions of his neighbours.  Surely the golfer is responsible for his actions.  The question is it reasonable to expect golfers to take measures to mitigate the possible damage their actions may cause.  That is not so easy to answer because we all must accept that our neighbours will infringe upon our rights from time to time and if there is no harm then no foul.  The tolerance level is a personal matter I suggest based on the frequency, real and possible danger/damage of the infringement.  As I say, any time a chap can collect 60+ balls in a short period of time, then there is an issue well beyond minor and expected inconveniences.  I suggest that simply paying for the damage isn't enough in this case.  There is a real danger of bodily harm which no insurance claim can compensate so the club should be taking serious measures to mitigate the risk.  As I say, if I were a judge and somebody was hurt in this scenario...I would not be very sympathetic toward the club and responsible golfers.


Ciao 
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 27, 2015, 08:04:34 PM
You misunderstand my first paragraph - I mean that a home owner should not have to tolerate golfers intentionally hitting balls at his property, which is what I gathered was meant by the previous use of "bombing."


Otherwise I stand by my post.


One other thing - I don't disagree with you that something of this nature has the potential to go "beyond minor inconvenience." I think that's clear. The question becomes who bears responsibility - those who created the nuisance, or those who came to it willingly. I suggest that the answer varies greatly depending on the circumstances. But I also suggest that in this particular circumstance, the home owner bears more than some small portion of the responsibility.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 28, 2015, 03:36:53 AM
Jon


Its hard to believe that anybody selling a house is going to reveal that 60+ ball can be bombed into the garden in short period of time.  I have played golf for 30 years and I find that number remarkable.  Given this, I seriously doubt the new owner could have known how grave the situation is.  Perhaps this is why they are suing the previous home owner? (I think I read that they are).? 


I still cannot understand how in the world you can believe that golfers hitting balls off property are not 100% responsible for their actions.  Does this mean you don't think they should have to pay for damages


Ciao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 28, 2015, 11:15:39 AM
Sean:

I'm not sure where you are getting that from my posts. You seem to think that I'm advocating a position that Mr. Homeowner should just suck it up and live with a constant rain of golf balls on to his home, cars and family. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm not talking about the actions or responsibility of individual golfers; rather, I'm talking about the property rights of a later home owner vis-a-vis a pre-existing golf course.

If a golfer hits his tee shot through Mr. Homeowner's window, the golfer is responsible for the damage. Likewise, if he wants to pursue those golfers who enter his land to retrieve balls for trespass, that is his right.  I don't think any of that's in doubt at all.

And perhaps, if the problem is really as bad as Mr. Homeowner suggests it is, and enough members have to dip into their pockets to pay for damage, the members will decide to change the course (or come up with some other solution to mitigate the issue).

It's an entirely different question as to whether Mr. Homeowner is entitled to injunctive relief to force the golf club to alter its golf course when he knew or should have known of the the issue before purchasing the property. And you're right - he is suing the seller - and in my opinion, that suit is where his remedy, if any, should lie.*

*(in addition, of course, to any remedy against individual golfers who cause damage to his property, as noted above).

Jon
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Mark Saltzman on July 28, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
Doesn't the whole thing turn on the frequency of the nuisance? At first, I was strongly in the camp that said he bought a house near a golf course, he should know that there may be golf balls that leave the golf course.  We've all seen absolutely god awful shots and know that no house around a golf course is truly safe and I think a homeowner should accept that there is a risk that balls may leave a golf course (and is entitled to claim damages should he be harmed).  But I do think it is unreasonable to say 60 golf balls / month leave the golf course's property in the same location and the owner of the other property cannot seek injunctive relief.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 28, 2015, 11:31:20 AM
Mark:

Good question. I've played the course and seen the hole, and I have trouble personally believing the 60 balls a month figure.

But even assuming that's true, don't we then have to go one step further and look at the consequence of those errant shots? If 60 is really the number, surely some of those balls caused actual damage to his home. Has the homeowner attempted to recoup any such damages from the club or the golfers? If so, have they willingly made him whole?

Injunctive relief is an extreme remedy and a last resort, particularly in these situations, and it's reserved for situations where no other remedy exists. Which is primarily my point in responding to Sean above - there are (or at least there should be) other remedies that can be invoked against both the seller and the individuals involved.

That, plus the fact that the homeowner was or should have been aware of the location of the course, plus the benefit he similtaneously derives from living on the course, militate heavily against the injunctive relief he seeks here.

Again, just my opinion under the circumstances.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Mark Saltzman on July 28, 2015, 11:56:33 AM
Jon, I agree with you, though we can't change the (purported) facts.  If the true figure is 2 balls a month then as far as I'm concerned that is a risk of living near a golf and the homeowner should be entitled to no or limited relief.  I'm assuming the 60 balls per month is accurate.

It's funny that Sean uses the word bomb because that's what I'm picturing when I read 60 balls per month.  Every few hours during daylight, a ball lands in my backyard... makes it hard to even use.  Whether or not there has been actual damage probably speaks to whether or not the 60 balls per month figure is inflated, but it could equally be that the homeowner has avoided using his backyard because of the risk of injury / damage.

But, bottom line, I do think injunctive relief should be avoided.  There must be steps the golf course can do (change the tee angle / location, add trees, add a net, restrict certain clubs from tee) to mitigate the risk of golf balls leaving the property, at least to the point of a reasonable level of risk, similar to that of any home that sits adjacent to a golf course.  This is the sensible solution.   
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Niall C on July 28, 2015, 11:57:40 AM
Jon


Do you not allow that it is the golf club or golf course owner who has an obligation to not provide a course where the design of it will mean balls landing in neighbouring property is a frequent occurence ? Whether the course was there first or the house/factory/shop/school etc was is neither here nor there. 


Niall
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 28, 2015, 12:19:55 PM
Jon


Do you not allow that it is the golf club or golf course owner who has an obligation to not provide a course where the design of it will mean balls landing in neighbouring property is a frequent occurence ? Whether the course was there first or the house/factory/shop/school etc was is neither here nor there. 


Niall

Niall:

I agree with your first statement.

I disagree, in part, with your second - I think who was there first is very material. That's not to say it's the sole and determining factor, but I do think it's an important element in the equation, especially where potential injunctive relief is concerned.

But again, even if I agree with both of your statements above, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree that the appropriate remedy is injunctive relief against the golf course, particularly where there are other more appropriate remedies available to the home owner.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 28, 2015, 12:22:35 PM
Mark:

I agree entirely with your last paragraph. And if the 60 balls a month figure is, in fact, accurate, then the members of the course have every incentive to do precisely that.

Jon
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Wayne_Kozun on July 28, 2015, 12:38:59 PM
By the way - here is the hole in question and the house with the swimming pool.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/467/19901905290_e9c9c3d14f_z.jpg)
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Kalen Braley on July 28, 2015, 01:15:47 PM
Wayne,
 
Thanks for posting that, that surely explains it, he's right in the slice zone.  I'm not surprised he gets 60 balls per month in his yard based on that configuration....
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Chris DeNigris on July 28, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Just curious-  For those of you supporting the homeowner- Have you ever owned a home on a golf course?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: John Kavanaugh on July 28, 2015, 02:50:08 PM
The rare sideyard pool.  He knew there was a problem when the pool didn't go in the backyard. I doubt he leaves a car in the driveway.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on July 28, 2015, 02:55:02 PM
JakaB


I too thought the same thing...pool to the side to avoid bombing. 


Chris


It would take very special circumstances for me to live on a course...the first being that I was set very far away from fairways, greens and tees not for safety, but for privacy.


CCiao
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: John Kavanaugh on July 28, 2015, 02:59:29 PM
It's also a douche move to put your pool so close to the neighbors bedroom.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Brent Hutto on July 28, 2015, 03:07:35 PM
It would take very special circumstances for me to live on a course...the first being that I was set very far away from fairways, greens and tees not for safety, but for privacy.


That's always been my thinking, as well. I have no interest in paying a large premium to buy a house with the questionable privilege of having an endless parade of drunk strangers in golf carts passing within arms length of my back yard.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 28, 2015, 03:49:35 PM
It's also a douche move to put your pool so close to the neighbors bedroom.

Agreed. Maybe his neighbor can get an injunction to force him to move it.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 28, 2015, 03:51:24 PM
And by the way - his own complaint says that the installation of his side-yard pool required the removal of trees that made the golf ball problem worse.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Pat Burke on July 28, 2015, 04:04:25 PM
Maybe they could move the range to the 10th hole.
 8)


The developer, builder, and planning board have created this monstrosity.
BUT, when doing your due diligence on buying on a course, you are taking the
problem on.  Taking it on with an eye towards forcing change is douchey.
Did I read the guy whois suing is a member of another club?  IF a golfer,
even more reason to believe he accepted this situation.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 28, 2015, 10:23:18 PM
   BTW  Isn't the bunkering on the parallel hole beautiful!
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: David_Tepper on July 28, 2015, 10:56:41 PM
"BTW  Isn't the bunkering on the parallel hole beautiful!"

Jim C. -

Not sure about beautiful, but it sure is plentiful. ;)

DT
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Pete_Pittock on July 28, 2015, 11:02:01 PM
I think it the two trees on the left in front of the runway tees. Golfers have to aim too far to the right.

In all seriousness, what about a house which was positioned not in a landing area, but is now in the LZ because of improvements in technology, coaching, etc.? He hasn't moved, but the nuisance came to him.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: mike_beene on July 29, 2015, 12:24:13 AM
Many years ago I represented the Dallas Athletic Club in a case brought by adjoining homeowners after Nicklaus redesigned the course(the redesign made it safer, actually). Somewhere out there is an appellate court opinion with DAC in the name of the case. In researching the matter, I recall a nice Ohio opinion where the justices took shots at each other's propensity to spray the ball.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on July 29, 2015, 01:32:15 AM
Mike:

That's great stuff. Looks like your case was Malouf v. Dallas Athletic Club, 837 S.W.2d 674 (Tx. App. 1992).

The Ohio case you referenced appears to be Patton v. Westwood Country Club, 18 Ohio App.2d 13 (1969), in which the court noted: "One nationally known amateur, Judge Don C. Miller, of Notre Dame's famed ‘Four Horsemen,’ employs such an educated slice regularly. It is a matter of common knowledge that he can curl a drive around a Thujopsis dolobrata one hundred and fifty yards out and split the fairway ahead of it. This is one of his things of life. An uneducated slice apparently is a thing of life for some Westwood members or guests."

For what it's worth, the Malouf court ruled for the golf course and held that the plaintiff failed to prove trespass or negligent redesign (though from a GCA standpoint, the latter is debatable), and the Patton court held that the homeowner, who bought the property and built the house despite knowing that a golf course abutted her land, had come to the nuisance and was not entitled to injunctive relief.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Rich Goodale on July 29, 2015, 02:33:09 AM
Wayne,
 
Thanks for posting that, that surely explains it, he's right in the slice zone.  I'm not surprised he gets 60 balls per month in his yard based on that configuration....

That property is not in the "slice" zone, it is in the "shank" zone, and how many golfers are skilled enough to hit a shank with their driver?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: mike_beene on July 30, 2015, 12:49:35 AM
Jon, those are the cases. I played the Gold course at the DAC a few times last year during my home course renovation. It occurred to me that the bushes down the 6th hole( I think) survived because we won. I hadn't thought about the case in years. I always aim way left there because it would be too ironic to hit one of the houses even if it's been 20 something years.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Wayne_Kozun on July 30, 2015, 01:38:55 PM
"One nationally known amateur, Judge Don C. Miller, of Notre Dame's famed ‘Four Horsemen,’ employs such an educated slice regularly. It is a matter of common knowledge that he can curl a drive around a Thujopsis dolobrata one hundred and fifty yards out and split the fairway ahead of it. This is one of his things of life. An uneducated slice apparently is a thing of life for some Westwood members or guests."
Anyone know the backstory to this?  What was the relationship between the Judge(s) that wrote this decision and the learned Judge Miller?  It seems like they have a bit of a sense of humour!
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Bob Montle on July 30, 2015, 03:46:58 PM


That property is not in the "slice" zone, it is in the "shank" zone, and how many golfers are skilled enough to hit a shank with their driver?

Me!   Me!
I can do that!
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on August 15, 2015, 04:35:38 PM
More stuff of interest:


Brad Klein's letter to QR in 2001:


http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1286613/behar-klein-2001-letter.pdf (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1286613/behar-klein-2001-letter.pdf)


Another article:
http://www.lohud.com/story/sports/columnists/mike-dougherty/2014/09/20/mike-dougherty-courts-must-side-quaker-ridge/15990617/ (http://www.lohud.com/story/sports/columnists/mike-dougherty/2014/09/20/mike-dougherty-courts-must-side-quaker-ridge/15990617/)
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on March 14, 2016, 09:23:25 AM
Trial recently started on assessment of damages. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: jeffwarne on March 14, 2016, 10:48:25 AM

   ... and is now using a BS theory and idiot judges to help him try to scramble his way out of his own crappy timing at somebody else's expense.


happens every day.
Justices quite often don't do "justice"
and even if you win, it's still time and money expensive
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on March 15, 2016, 12:24:02 AM
Trial recently started on assessment of damages. Stay tuned.

Thanks for the update, Steve. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Does the fact that the issue is damages mean that injunctive relief (i.e., an order to modify the hole) is off the table?
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on March 16, 2016, 08:01:23 PM
This was a non-jury trial. Testimony concluded today after about 2 weeks. The transcript will be furnished to both sides around April 2. The court directed the filing of a post trial memorandum by each side (maximum 20 pages in length, not including addendum material) within 45 days of the receipt of the transcript and reply briefs no later then 5 days thereafter. The Court should then issue its decision within 90 days of receipt of the reply briefs. It looks like it will be sometime in September for the Trial Court's decision. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on July 14, 2016, 08:58:13 PM
    Returned to Quaker Ridge yesterday.  Still no change.  Played hole #2 from 275 yards.  The law is an ass.
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on October 12, 2016, 09:11:13 PM
At last.... a decision:

Homeowner loses!!!

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/scarsdale/2016/10/12/quaker-ridge-must-pay-homeowners-7k-stray-golf-balls/91905444/
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jim_Coleman on October 12, 2016, 11:18:03 PM
Faith renewed!
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Jon Cavalier on October 14, 2016, 02:40:01 AM
At last.... a decision:

Homeowner loses!!!

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/scarsdale/2016/10/12/quaker-ridge-must-pay-homeowners-7k-stray-golf-balls/91905444/

Excellent. Sounds like the judge got it right.

A question: Was there any injunctive relief awarded (i.e., will the hole remain shortened to 275yds)?

Thanks for keeping us updated on this Steve - an interesting legal issue for sure. 
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: jeffwarne on October 18, 2016, 10:40:02 PM
If I were a member, with this resolved (for the moment) it would be difficult for me to refrain from firing a ball over the net.......
Title: Re: A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance
Post by: Sean_A on October 19, 2016, 03:52:05 AM
At last.... a decision:

Homeowner loses!!!

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/scarsdale/2016/10/12/quaker-ridge-must-pay-homeowners-7k-stray-golf-balls/91905444/ (http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/scarsdale/2016/10/12/quaker-ridge-must-pay-homeowners-7k-stray-golf-balls/91905444/)


??? It sounds to like a compromise from where I am standing.  Both sides did things to mitigate what was clearly a problem. There was no way a judge was going to award $3.7 Million, but if one is going to court why not shoot for the sky?  That said, in time, this idea 3-5 golf ball bombarding an adjacent property on any given day will not be tolerated because its insanely dangerous...wait and see folks.

Ciao