In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1484
Online now 658 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
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.
I call BS on this; they know the attorney.
but, but their house is so big and pretty
but, but they have a disabled child
This post was edited by Pinky Tuscadero 13 months ago
RCMB Join Date: September 2001
I guarantee you there's a bill.
I'm not saying there's no obligation to pay this bill, or perhaps a handshake agreement to pay it at a severely reduced rate, but I guarantee that the attorney has covered her/his behind and issued regular statements at the full hourly rate.
Photo on strike.
LWS, you are just so wrong here. It doesn't matter if the law is in your words "draconian". It's the rule, the homeowners knew it yet ignored it. How can you possibly think that this is OK?
Maybe someone can shed some light on a few questions I have.
Was the set-back requirements a deed restriction or a HOA restriction? How do deed restrictions get set? If it was a HOA restriction, wouldn’t it be up to the HOA to go through the prosecution of the offenders? Why does the neighbor (private party) have any right to go after these people for breaking any restriction? Wouldn’t/shouldn’t that be up to a governing body to determine?
Forgive me, it has been a while buy my recollection is that it was a deed restriction set when the property was subdivided. To bring suit you only have to show harm. Being a property owner in the Plat (let one next door) most likely was enough to show harm in potential decreased property value so they were able to bring the suit.
A Spartan Today, A SPARTAN FOREVER. Through thick and thin, low and high water I strive to be the best Spartan ever.
Was the set-back requirements a deed restriction or a HOA restriction?
Deed restrictions per the Court of Appeals opinion (linked....I think. If not: publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20070823_c268074_52_268074.opn.pdf. Concurring opinion: publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20070823_c268074_53_268074c.opn.pdf)
How do deed restrictions get set?
Typically by the developer when the subdivision is created. Also typically the developer will create the guidelines for a HOA to be created.
If it was a HOA restriction, wouldn’t it be up to the HOA to go through the prosecution of the offenders? Why does the neighbor (private party) have any right to go after these people for breaking any restriction?
At times, yes. However if the HOA rules permit a member to enforce any of the regulations, then that private owner can do so at their own expense as opposed to using HOA funds to pay for the litigation.
Wouldn’t/shouldn’t that be up to a governing body to determine?
Ultimately it is.....the Judicial Branch of our government.
0000000016 00000 n
0000001153 00000 n
0000001292 00000 n
0000001548 00000 n
0000002184 00000 n
0000002502 00000 n
0000002677 00000 n
0000003179 00000 n
0000003294 00000 n
0000003465 00000 n
0000003772 00000 n
0000006130 00000 n
0000007286 00000 n
0000007923 00000 n
0000007967 00000 n
0000000975 00000 n
0000000636 00000 n
This post was edited by nedgo 13 months ago
You typically don't have to show anything besides the allegation that the deed restriction was supposedly violated.
Anyone living in the subdivision (i.e. subject to the same restrictions) would have standing to sue in the county where the property is located.
EDIT: If you want an injunction, you'd have to allege some harm has, or will, occur if the violation is permitted to continue.
True, but if their is no harm found, the judge wouldn't often rule for a remedy forcing reconstruction or removal of structure
That certainly goes without saying. In a sense, if there's a violation, the harm is presumed and I would hope that the offended party would have counsel of any ability to spin a tale of woe and misery to establish the harm.
And I bet this is what the people who built the house thought too. That is I think they just decided screw it, we'll build, the worst we'll do is owe the neighbor any reduction in value which they will likely never be able to prove, but at worst will only be 10-20k. So they went ahead, Matt Maroun owner of the Ambassador Bridge, has spent his life doing just that. In this case, oops.
And honestly, I'm somewhat shocked my the decision by the Judges in this case. When I first heard about this case I was sure a cash settlement would be done (and perhaps it still could be before July).
If you read the S. Crt decision, and the COA decision (as an fyi I was intrigued by this because I wanted to build a 20X40 garage on part of my lot which isn't allowed under my HOA) the law was pretty clearly against them when they broke ground. I think they should have resolved the issue before building anything. Even the original trial judge cast cautioned them against continuing with the project even though he decided in their favor.
Apparently, the defendants offered to buy the plantiffs' house, but the asking price was astronomical.
Give it the fuck up. You never understand anything close to reality or even the given circumstances.
I'm sure there is . But they aint paying what is 'alleged'.
Of course it was. Screw the defendents in this case.
God bless you and your family.
I still think municipal building departments should bear responsibility for knowing HOA setback restrictions when issuing permits. It's not that difficult. They're paid with our tax dollars but seem to spend a lot of time jacking-off.
Instead of looking into permits they issue, they spend a lot of "working time" nit-picking inspections. When I built my house in the early 90's, Troy had a major power-tripper doing inspections. Inspector Dickhead rode my mechanical contractor a few times. Made him move a half bath exhaust fan. By the time the home was finished I had 4 valves to shut off gas to the fireplace after the line branched out on it's own.
If the defendant is forced to tear down his house, he needs a new attorney. The municipality should not be held innocent of wrong doing. That's
We inform them of setback and HOA requirements. Until this year (in Indiana) we had no authority to force them to obey HOA guidelines, only to inform them and if they ignore them, to inform the HOA to try to get them to stop it but many HOAs aren't organized enough to do it. Now setback and deed restrictions we have more power over.
I like to believe that this wouldn't have happened in my department, though I know mistakes have been made in the past.
These guys had until 7/1 to bring this into compliance, or reach an agreement with their neighbor. Anyone live out there? Did they tear part of the house down?
The municipality has no legal authority to enforce deed restrictions plain and simple.
Yep we used to have it but don't ya know? Everything is way better on the new board
i only care about spartans --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqsAJQc-NCY
Well, I guess we have an update. Someones going to jail on Friday.
Part or all of a controversial Washington Township mansion will be torn down. But how and when remain questions.
You are so wrong. It is not the administrative portion of a municipality's job to enforce private agreement. It is the judicial portion of a municipality job to enforce it. basic civics - get on board. You just could not be more wrong. It has been explained many times in this thread that the municipality job ends at the enforcement of the municipality rules.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports