[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[Niall C]

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

[Jon Cavalier]

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.

[Niall C]

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

[Sean_A]

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 

[Jon Cavalier]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[Jon Cavalier]

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

[Mark Saltzman]

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.

[Jon Cavalier]

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.

[Mark Saltzman]

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.   

[Niall C]

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

[Jon Cavalier]

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.

[Jon Cavalier]

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

[Wayne_Kozun]

By the way - here is the hole in question and the house with the swimming pool.

[Kalen Braley]

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....

[Chris DeNigris]

Just curious-  For those of you supporting the homeowner- Have you ever owned a home on a golf course?

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[John Kavanaugh]

It's also a douche move to put your pool so close to the neighbors bedroom.

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Jon Cavalier]

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.

[Jon Cavalier]

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.

[Pat Burke]

Maybe they could move the range to the 10th hole.
 


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.

[Jim_Coleman]

   BTW  Isn't the bunkering on the parallel hole beautiful!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()