In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
WASHINGTON TWP. — The Michigan Court of Appeals has told a couple they have to tear down all or part of their $1.1 million mansion because they built it too close to their property lines.... Gerald and Aileen Thom filed the lawsuit before construction began, saying the planned home violated Lockwood Hills subdivision rules because it would be 80 feet from the Thoms’ home instead of 100 feet and 28 feet from the side property line instead of 40 feet.
The Thoms’ attorney, Thomas Kalas, said he was not surprised by the ruling because courts already have determined deed restrictions are legally enforceable.
Idiot were warned before construction and blew off the lawsuit. Now, they're saying they built the place because of their special needs child. I wonder if being a "dumbass" is a special need because the homeowners are afflicted.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has told a couple they have to tear down all or part of their $1.1 million mansion because they built it too close to their property lines.
Does anybody know who the builder was?
"The lawyers said there have been talks about a financial settlement to avoid demolition, but they have not been successful so far.
“We’ve tried to compromise all along, but he (Simon Palushaj) has not been reasonable,” Kalas said.
Kalas said the Thoms would like to be fully reimbursed for their costs of at least $220,000, plus other compensation."
Something tells me the talks will reignite. As my old history professor once said, "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds soon follow."
Fricking idiots went ahead with construction even though the lawsuit was filed before construction began.
Whatever happened to the Nelson Muntz emoticon? Now would be a great time to use it. I had to go find a picture instead.
We are not the same, I am a Spartan
One of the first things I thought. Who would proceed with the project knowing how absurd it was?
UM, Green Bay and Chicago teams all have one thing in common: They all suck
The builder is probably getting paid no matter what.
How did they ever get the permits is a bigger question.
And neither is using your child's condition to hide behind when you are a dumbass. There is NO reason in hell that house had to be built against a variance to accommodate a special needs child. Now, because they were dumbasses, they using their child's condition to make excuses for themselves. It's disgusting.
It sounds like the house fell within all the building codes for the municipality, but not the home owners association.
All of this is the arrogance of the GC/Builder/Owners thinking they could just bull ahead, get it built, move in and then surely the neighbors would relent for a small (like $10K-$25K) settlement. Maybe even play the disabled child card if required. The fact they were made aware of the problem before construction commenced tell us all we need to know.
Truth of the matter is they wanted a very large house in a specific area. Rather than reducing the size of the home or possibly changing the location of the home on the property, they ignored the subdivision rules that they signed off on when they took pocession of the lot. The neighbors weren't complaining about one foot or 3 feet they filed suit when they saw it was 20 feet off from the back end and 12 feet from the side.
I have no sympathy for anyone who can afford to build a 9000 sq foot house.
the house includes a full size basketball court and locker room
Maybe it's because I grew up with no neighbor within 1/4 mile, but why would you want a 9K Sq Ft house and have it be 80 feet from your neighbors?
I can't figure out why there wasn't a TRO filed to stop construction pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
My girlfriend grew up in Shelby Township, which if I am not mistaken is part of/next to/interchangeable with Washington Township. Some of the people I have met seriously think they are above laws and due to whatever perceived social status can do whatever they want. I love seeing arrogant people be taken down a notch. Next time you want to build a 1.1million dollar house, make sure you do your homework. It's not that difficult to make sure what you want to build is allowed and approved.
Wow, from the article the OP posted you would think the Palushaj family built the home and thumbed their noses at the law. In reality, a lower court ruled the deed restrictions were inapplicable and the Thom family had "unclean hands," but warned the Palushaj family to proceed at their own risk.
The COA seemed beside themselves that they had to rule in favor of the plaintiff. “While it appears from the record that plaintiffs are unlikely to reach a compromise with defendants that will allow defendants to maintain their home as it currently exists, such a compromise would perhaps best serve the interests of each of the parties."
To be fair... rich people generally get away with this sort of thing. These folks must have not been rich enough.
(SEE: Matty Moron and the mere fact that there is any "debate" on the second bridge.)
Yeah, I always wondered that, too. I live in a regular neighborhood where houses are 40-50 feet apart, but I'm not a zillynaire who could afford a 9,000 square foot house. If I were, I'd have a little more room.
You go through neighborhoods where you know the joints must be worth at least $750,000 or so, and they're close enough to spit at one another.
What, now the vaguely used term "special needs" is sacred?
I have neighbors who put up a pole barn with a full sized locker room and basketball court... but since our land backs up to the township, he decided all rules for the city and subdivision are thrown out the window since he built it in the twp across the back property line. Instead of fining him and bringing him to court for building a road over the easement, the powers that be decided it wasn't worth the effort because his family has owned one of the named businesses in town for a generation. Rich people get to do this stuff.
the guy should reject the courts' decision and declare sovereignty.
East Lansing- A Drinking Town with a Football Problem
Oh, it's definitely a spitting match. The lower court trial did the process no favors as it appears their verdict was totally bogus, "They were concerned enough that, in 2004, they tried to enjoin construction. The trial court refused to grant an injunction, opining that the deed restrictions were either unenforceable or inapplicable [obviously, wrong]. The court apparently questioned the Thoms’ motives, offering “unclean hands” as another reason to deny them relief. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know what legal connotations "unclean hands" carry, but it appears the court is saying, "You're being kind of jerks about this, so we're ignoring the law." That's kind of shaky legal ground--"you're being weenies, and we don't like that."
When the COA gave unanimous verdict, that kind of made it clear what it thought of the legally of the lower court ruling. While they said the plaintiffs were being weenies, the law is the law (a paraphrase).
It is still more than that. Before the COA was forced to make that ruling, they ordered the Circuit Court Judge to provide a remedy.
"Biernat said there were some equities to balance. After holding a hearing, he visited the parties’ homes. Biernat apparently wasn’t impressed with the Thoms’ claims that they were being “crowded in” by the Palushajs’ home. The Palushajs, on the other hand, would be economically crippled if ordered to raze the home.
Biernat ordered the Palushajs to pay the Thoms $183,000 in costs and attorney fees, and to maintain landscaping that limits the view between the two properties."
I actually find myself on the side of the defendant. Not because I believe they should be breaking the law (even though they kind of got the "ok" to do?), but because, as you said, the plaintiffs are weenies.
My mother in law, from Vietnam, has been talking about this for a while, since she lives in Lockwood and is a realtor in the area.
At the same time, who really gives a fuck what a man does on his own property in the country? That will eventually become a problem whenever he decides to sell it.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports