Dogleg left barrage: Homeowners must refile damage lawsuit

[ChipNRun]

 

A couple who owns a house near the dogleg of No. 15 at Indian Pond C.C. were upset that said property had been pelted by 651 golf balls since they occupied it in 2017. Lower photo shows some of spots where balls actually hit the house.

 

The Tenczars sued for damages, and in December thought they had won a $5 million lawsuit against the club. But as per WSJ, the verdict was thrown out, and the couple will have a new civil trial this August.

 

So what is your read on this. Possibly...

* Indian Pond should pay up for not being a good neighbor; or...

* The Tenczars have no real case; clear failure of due diligence review before purchasing house near golf course.

 

Or, some other verdict?

 

WRXers, what say ye?

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by ChipNRun
Typo.

[MattM97]

Did they realize they were buying a house on a golf course cause you buy a house on a golf course can expect some golf balls on your property. 

[Is Golf Fun or Work]

All about planning....when we built a house on a golf course, I picked a lot that was 350 yards from the tee box on a par 5....had a few balls in the yard, none ever hit the house.

[dropkicked]

Caveat Emptor.. "Buyer Beware"

Plexiglass or Lexan windows would be wise... perhaps a solid brick or stone exterior? 😅

[OnTheBag]

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.  Haha.

 

In all seriousness.......Having worked at a lot of courses between caddying gigs, I have some experience with these types of issues.  What it always boils down to is "chicken or the egg."  If the golf course in it's current state, existed prior to the house being built and occupied, then caveat emptor or buyer beware applies.  If the golf hole was modified in any way after the house existed in it's current form, then the occupants have prove an increase in damage after the modification.

 

If the course opened after the home was built and occupied, then the course is liable for protecting the home.  

 

The courts have waffled on what constitutes occupancy of the home and if that is extended from the original owner to the new owner.  

[Hawkeye77]

Edit:  the above post is just plain wrong.

 

A link to the fact and law specific ruling is below, a lot to digest.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

Found the ruling online.  Here is the summary preceding the actual opinion:

 

   We conclude that the trial judge erred when he did not interpret the documents creating the covenants and restrictions as a whole and in light of attendant circumstances.  When read as a whole, the documents provide that the plaintiffs' home was subject to an easement allowing for the "reasonable and efficient operation" of a golf course in a "customary and usual manner."  As the jury were not instructed accordingly, and the failure to give the instruction was prejudicial, the verdict must be reversed and the injunction lifted.  We decline, however, to direct a verdict in the defendant's favor, as we cannot decide as a matter of law that the operation of the fifteenth hole and the number of errant shots hitting the plaintiffs' home was reasonable.  With golf, some errant shots, way off line, are inevitable, but a predictable pattern of errant shots that arise from unreasonable golf course operation is not.  In the instant case, a properly instructed jury are required to resolve whether the operation of the fifteenth hole, including the number of errant shots hitting the plaintiffs' home, was reasonable.[2]

 

So the door is open for consideration of what those terms mean and what the golf course did or didn't do to manage the issue and what the jury thinks about all that.  Still very fact specific.

 

Here's the actual opinion.  https://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/erik-tenczar-another-1-vs.-indian-pond-country-club-inc

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Roejye]

I remember this situation,  it's a perfect storm of poor development planning,  poor hole design,  and the course being negligent in their duties/response. I know that the course redesigned the tee box and it's not really a problem anymore. I also think that the buyers should have been more aware of the issue. 

[mat562]

Honestly? I think the whole thing is a preposterous waste of the court's time, the lawyers urging the occupants to sue are parasites on society, and the people whinging that the house next to a golf course that they bought is being bit by golf balls on a regular basis are head-shakingly stupid.

[golfortennis]

30 minutes ago, mat562 said:

Honestly? I think the whole thing is a preposterous waste of the court's time, the lawyers urging the occupants to sue are parasites on society, and the people whinging that the house next to a golf course that they bought is being bit by golf balls on a regular basis are head-shakingly stupid.

 

You are getting soft in your old age.  You are being far too kind in both instances.

[MtlJeff]

If i recall the details of this case....as much like Mtljeff's nudes, it's circled the internet many times

 

I believe at one point the course website was actually encouraging people to try to cut the corner as a way to play the hole. I believe the homeowners actually asked as part of the buying process whether the house got hit with balls often and was told almost never. 

 

I also believe there was a request for a net or something which the course refused. 

 

I don't think it's as simple as just people buying a house and should've known better. It sounded like when i read that the course was likely a little negligent and at worst even encouraging people to hit closer to the house

[PNWGuy]

7 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

I believe at one point the course website was actually encouraging people to try to cut the corner as a way to play the hole.

 

From the picture it looks like it takes a towering 280+ tee ball to clear the corner.  WRX'ers can pull that off 99 times out of a 100 with a 3 wood.

Edited February 23, 2023 by PNWGuy

[jholz]

8 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

If i recall the details of this case....as much like Mtljeff's nudes, it's circled the internet many times

 

I believe at one point the course website was actually encouraging people to try to cut the corner as a way to play the hole. I believe the homeowners actually asked as part of the buying process whether the house got hit with balls often and was told almost never. 

 

I also believe there was a request for a net or something which the course refused. 

 

I don't think it's as simple as just people buying a house and should've known better. It sounded like when i read that the course was likely a little negligent and at worst even encouraging people to hit closer to the house

 

I'm not sure if you are trying to make the situation sound more reasonable or less? Intriguing.

 

Regardless, I don't think this makes @mat562's comment any less true, indeed, it probably just strengthens his argument. 

[MtlJeff]

10 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

I'm not sure if you are trying to make the situation sound more reasonable or less? Intriguing.

 

Regardless, I don't think this makes @mat562's comment any less true, indeed, it probably just strengthens his argument. 

 

As anyone who has read my comments in the LIV threads knows, i am all for respectful disagreements....In this case i would probably side with the homeowners to be honest. At least from what i remember reading about it

[Klubster]

Seems the simple solution is to move the tee box to the right near the cart path.  Looks like you would be too close to the tree line to hit over them.  The law suit is not so simple.

[farmer]

In April '22, the couple was awarded 5M for damage and emotional distress (sure to be appealed) and the tee was moved back to eliminate the cut across option.  The Tenczars also sued the builder, and settled out of court.  The builder removed trees which might have sheltered the house and also did not install impact resistant glass, which is standard in all other houses in the development.  5M seems excessive, but one window was apparently a bedroom with a child in the room.

[Chunkitgood]

Another effect of “distance” as people try to take out the dogleg by hitting over the trees.

 

If you cannot sue the human race for stupidity, at least you can take advantage of it by suing over stupid things…and winning at the trial level.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Horrible course design. The tees look like they're lined up begging to hit at the houses. The fairway is shaped to require a draw. There is less trouble to the left of the second fairway bunker than the right. Dumb. Damian Pascuzzo should pay for a net out of principle.

 

That said, the couple should move to the country by a dairy, where they can complain of the smell.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Fairways_and_Greens

[Mitchell]

On 2/22/2023 at 3:44 PM, mat562 said:

Honestly? I think the whole thing is a preposterous waste of the court's time, the lawyers urging the occupants to sue are parasites on society, and the people whinging that the house next to a golf course that they bought is being bit by golf balls on a regular basis are head-shakingly stupid.

Let’s see, getting close to Easter 🤔, you should know when to expect attempted process service 😂