Courses That Are Surrounded by Houses. Who's Responsible for the Damage?

[mcanadiens]

I simply won't play a course if there are more than a couple of houses that are close enough to be a problem.

At least in Ohio, there are plenty enough other options. 

[snapfade]

55 minutes ago, klineka said:

You chose to purchase a home where this was a possibility though. And you knew that when you purchased the home. (Unless in the very rare circumstances that the houses were there first prior to a golf course and the golf course was put in after the fact)

There are significantly more homes available not on golf courses than there are homes that are on golf courses, so that is a risk you knowingly agree to when purchasing said home.

 

I don't think you're using the word livelihood right. Livelihood means "the way someone earns the money people need to pay for food, a place to live, clothing, etc"

Your house isn't the way that you earn money for a living, right?

I also could flip that back onto you though, why should your place of dwelling trump my entertainment? There are far more places of dwelling than there are places where I can partake in golf entertainment.

 

But you chose to live there, so you have to deal with the repercussions, just like someone living near the ocean has to deal with hurricanes.

This. 

I live by the ocean, my choice, I put up hurricane shutters almost every year and leave for a few days. At the course I play, there is one set of nines that has houses lining the fairways down the right side. The home owners buy at their own risk. They can not go after anyone who hits their house with a ball. They can come out and yell, but the course, nor the city will do anything for them. 

[ChiTown]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No, just pointing out that they didn't "win" $5M, and some of the facts re: timing are why:

In 2001 Indian Pond recorded an amendment to the declaration of covenants and restrictions that applied to certain “golf course lots,” including the lot that the plaintiffs later purchased. The golf course lots became subject to the right and easement contained in the original declaration allowing golfers to retrieve errant golf balls on unimproved areas of those residential lots. The amended declaration also provided that golf course lots were subject to Indian Pond’s “right to reserve or grant easements for the benefit of the owner of the golf course for the reasonable and efficient operation of the golf course and its facilities in a customary and usual manner.” There were other restrictions on development of the golf course lots; specifically, no pools, swing sets, play sets, or clotheslines were allowed without Indian Pond’s consent. Homeowners must minimize any adverse impacts to the golf course.

When the plaintiffs bought their home on the 15th fairway in 2017, their deed expressly incorporated restrictions and easements of record that were in force. Presumably the plaintiffs had to acknowledge that living on Country Club Way alongside a golf course with specific easements in favor of the course owner and players meant they would be subject to the challenges associated with the game of golf, including errant shots. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs sued Indian Pond Country Club for trespass in July of 2018, 15 months after purchasing their lot.

This is so much fun. A few quick points.

First, the easement grants access to golfers to retrieve errant golf balls on unimproved areas.  It’s fair to say that golf balls that damage multiple windows, fill a child’s swimming pool, and enter other finished areas are not subject to the easement. Apparently golf balls hit the house over 600 times  in the course of 4-5 years. 

Second, and please correct me if I’m wrong as I haven’t read the court opinion. But my understanding is that it was remanded for a new trial because of faulty jury instructions regarding regarding whether or not the club tee boxes and fairway were reasonably operated. So the easement is not the issue  

Finally, this is definitely a win for the family.  The CC can try again but they know the damages could be $5M.  The news I saw didn’t describe how damages were established but I hope they consider diminution in value of the property. After all. How much could you sell the house for knowing these problems exist. Damages could be higher or could be lower if they choose to spin the trial wheel again 

 

[snapfade]

And to add. Florida law does not specifically protect the home owner nor the golfer. Premises liability laws do though, meaning that a golfer has the right to enter a property in a reasonable manner to retrieve a ball but can not do tear down a fence or something, and the home owner must inform the golfer if anything on the property that could lead to injury. If golfer is injured on the property then he has no claim. Most HOA's have some sort of clause that lay the burden on on homeowner. A homeowner has the right to sue in some cases for damages, but awarding judgement in favor of the homeowner is iffy.  And then if he signed the clause in his HOA he is screwed. Bottom line, don't move to Florida and buy a house on a golf course unless you are prepared to take incoming fire from time to time. 

Interesting article:

House and car hit by golf balls - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale

---

(WSVN) - When you buy a house, you like to feel safe, but that’s not the case for one couple. They have to worry about<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, ChiTown said:

This is so much fun.

If you say so. Just post correct things and people won’t need to correct you. 😀

[ChiTown]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

If you say so. Just post correct things and people won’t need to correct you. 😀

Nah. Keeps everyone on their tows. Trust but verify 

[StuM]

2 hours ago, ChiTown said:

Nah. Keeps everyone on their tows. Trust but verify 

“tows”?

type but verify 😜

[ChiTown]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

“tows”?

type but verify 😜

Stupid autocorrect. Well played @StuM

[StuM]

23 minutes ago, ChiTown said:

Stupid autocorrect. Well played @StuM

I think my phone ha “auto anti-correct”.  I swear it changes proper typing to jiberish.

[Maroon88]

He who hitteth, oweth

[ChiTown]

10 hours ago, Maroon88 said:

He who hitteth, oweth

@Maroon88 I’ve been thinking about this a lot more. Here are my thoughts.

1. If my ball ends up within someone’s backyard. And it’s within a few yards of the property line and I can see it, I’ll retrieve it if I can do so without interrupting anything. Otherwise, I’m moving on
2. If my ball causes property damage of any sorts it’s on me and I should pay.
3. If there are kids selling lemonade I’ll always buy some. 

[snapfade]

1 hour ago, ChiTown said:

@Maroon88 I’ve been thinking about this a lot more. Here are my thoughts.

1. If my ball ends up within someone’s backyard. And it’s within a few yards of the property line and I can see it, I’ll retrieve it if I can do so without interrupting anything. Otherwise, I’m moving on
2. If my ball causes property damage of any sorts it’s on me and I should pay.
3. If there are kids selling lemonade I’ll always buy some. 

Now would you intentionally hit a ball into someone's back yard if say  there was a certain bikini clad birthing individual ( non gender specific title inserted of course) lying by the pool?

[StuM]

7 minutes ago, snapfade said:

Now would you intentionally hit a ball into someone's back yard if say  there was a certain bikini clad birthing individual ( non gender specific title inserted of course) lying by the pool?

Usually your shot zone should try to keep the water hazards out of play.

[ChiTown]

1 hour ago, snapfade said:

Now would you intentionally hit a ball into someone's back yard if say  there was a certain bikini clad birthing individual ( non gender specific title inserted of course) lying by the pool?

Not a doctor. Wouldn’t be able to help with birthing. @StuM

But I know what you mean. And “nope” I wouldn’t take the bait. 

[StuM]

3 hours ago, ChiTown said:

Not a doctor. Wouldn’t be able to help with birthing. @StuM

Whoaaaaaa, that was @snapfade, not me.  I just mentioned the pool being a water hazard.

[ChiTown]

24 minutes ago, StuM said:

Whoaaaaaa, that was @snapfade, not me.  I just mentioned the pool being a water hazard.

I was referring to the typo “birthing” or thinking it was a typo. 😂

[SEMI_Duffer]

On 8/17/2023 at 11:08 AM, ChiTown said:

Finally, this is definitely a win for the family.

I wouldn't bet on it 

On 8/17/2023 at 11:08 AM, ChiTown said:

The news I saw didn’t describe how damages were established but I hope they consider diminution in value of the property. After all. How much could you sell the house for knowing these problems exist.

There is a principle in law known as "due diligence."  As regards the acquisition of property, the application this principle means the buyer is expected to have read and agreed to all restrictive covenants, deed restrictions, and disclosed defects or other conditions.  E.g.: If I buy a home and the previous owner had disclosed the basement is subject to flooding, I have no legal remedy against the previous owner should the basement frequently flood.

When I bought our home I knew there was a ten foot wide utility easement all the way up one side of the property, a twenty-five foot wide utility and county road easement all the way across the front, and that the back end of the property extended into registered wetlands--rendering that portion of my property essentially unusable.  I knew these things because I performed my due diligence.

Another example: A friend of ours was thinking about buying a certain home.  I took one look and advised her "You best check.  I suspect that home is in a floodplain."  Sure enough: It was.  Against my recommendation, she bought it anyway.  You guessed it: Frequent flooding of a good portion of her property and a sump well that almost never stops.  In non-legalese: She has nobody to blame but herself.

In the instant case: The family bought the home knowing, or having been reasonably expected to know, the property was subject to the frequent incursion of golf balls.  It was right there in the property's declaration of covenants and restrictions.  As noted: The law doesn't always work in the way a rational individual might reasonably expect it would, but, I hardly see where the property owner has a leg to stand on, the initial decision in the case notwithstanding.

In the case of a developed property that suffered the problem: At least in my state the seller would be required to disclose the condition as part of the sale.  If they didn't, I would expect the buyer's recourse would be the seller, not the golf course or its golfers.

N.B.: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by SEMI_Duffer

[ChiTown]

6 hours ago, SEMI_Duffer said:

I wouldn't bet on it 

 

In the instant case: The family bought the home knowing, or having been reasonably expected to know, the property was subject to the frequent incursion of golf balls.  It was right there in the property's declaration of covenants and restrictions.  As noted: The law doesn't always work in the way a rational individual might reasonably expect it would, but, I hardly see where the property owner has a leg to stand on, the initial decision in the case notwithstanding.

In the case of a developed property that suffered the problem: At least in my state the seller would be required to disclose the condition as part of the sale.  If they didn't, I would expect the buyer's recourse would be the seller, not the golf course or its golfers.

N.B.: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

I thought that in this case the homeowners bought the property before the golf course was built. Or there was some sort of change by the course that put the residence “in harms way”