Any Lawyers in here?

E

ezra

Well-known member
worst part is you wont have time to use the boat you will be too busy working OT to pay the 75g.I know I am crazy I rent a dock around my house and pay to have the dock and lift put in and out at the cabin.I used both boats prob 5 times last yr W.T.F. is my prob.it would be cheaper to hire a guy to drive me around 5 times a yr.then I would not have to put the hrs in to winterising cleaning buffing money on tabs trailer tires storage gas and maintenance. now I am just depressed I WANT MY SNOW BACK!
 
R

rmk4ever

New member
What do you call 200 dead lawyer's at the bottom of the ocean?

A GOOD START!!!

sorry did not see big bill's post.;)
 
Last edited:
P

polarisrider1

New member
This whole dock law suit has gotten very complicated. The dock was built over wetlands without a DEQ permit. The wetlands are deeded to 135 people as a park. A neighbor complained about the dock builders lots as not having Riparian rights. The Dock crosses a commons area as we call it. The complaint started as, "We paid more for our lots, since we have riparian rights." Why should they who have no riparian rights to the lake (dry lots) be able to build a dock accross wetlands 375" aprox. to reach the lake. I had no problem with that dock being there. Then came the big floating dock on the end and several boats. This is when it hit the fan with all my neighbors. The dock was extremely well built, but it was put in with out asking all the owners of the wetlands. Both sides fought the issue going for "loop holes" not on what is right and what is wrong. The thing that bothers me other than the legal bills are these are my neighbors after all this is over. They are good people on both sides. Many of them are also snowmobilers. Yet, now we are going to have this cloud over the lake involved. There is a lake association involved. So the legal bills get divided up 135 ways. I am happy for that. My portion to pay after the Lawyers price reduction is between 400-500 dollars. so Skylar the new sled is still on my Christmas list. It looks as if all lot owners will pay the bill no matter what side they are on divided amongst us 135 ways. We can pay as little as $25 a year ea. on this bill. As far as the dock, The "dry landers" have applied for a DEQ permit. Which a Public hearing will take place. I have heard we have 4 endangered species in those wetlands. They also, as I interprete it need permission from all the land owners (135) to get the okay to put the dock back in across ALL ours property. In the end the both Lawyers win with our money.
 
Y

yamaholic

Member
We had somewhat of a similar deal at our lake without going into great detail. People with dry lots wanted to put docks on park property it went to court judges order was NO docks will be allowed on park property.
 
chords

chords

Active member
yamaholic - in your case I assume park is lakefront that dry lot owners have access to. If so, who pays taxes on that park parcel ?

I ask because our up north sub on a large lake has 2 lakefront parks each ~ 75 feet. Neither one really gets used but is available for anyone in the sub.

And here is the amazing part - NOBODY pays taxes on either prime lakefront.
 
A

anonomoose

New member
I have news for yah....no more free beer from the people on the dry side for the people who are on the wet side.

No sense in applying for permit from DEQ/DNR if they need ALL property owners to approve the placement of dock. But since it looks like this is an association (??) then only 51% (majority) vote will approve the dock.

Why not propose rules for the dock (no boat tie-ups...just day use) and everyone wins?? After all these ARE your neighbors...remember, the ones who plow you out, pull you out when you get stuck, and you sponge on for free beer from time to time???

Compromise is always the best solution to these issues...that way everyone walks away NOT being the looser.

BTW: Like needing a good surgeon, everyone hates a lawyer until They need one...then they are glad they have one, and hope he knows his stuff very well.
 
E

ezra

Well-known member
I know of a similar situation that all parties got the big banana once the conservation district got there filthy hands on the deal no docks across wet lands.but the lawyers still got payed.people still paying high watter front tax with out the benny of a pace to park the boat.
 
P

polarisrider1

New member
chords said:
yamaholic - in your case I assume park is lakefront that dry lot owners have access to. If so, who pays taxes on that park parcel ?

I ask because our up north sub on a large lake has 2 lakefront parks each ~ 75 feet. Neither one really gets used but is available for anyone in the sub.

And here is the amazing part - NOBODY pays taxes on either prime lakefront.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what we have going on a double lot on 1 lake and this roughly 8 acre wetlands called a "Park".
 
Last edited:
P

polarisrider1

New member
Judges ruling is that the Association does not own the Park's. The lot owners own the Parks. The Association took it upon themselves (after a majority vote to do so.) to seek a legal method to get the dock removed. They felt they had the power to do this since they represent the property owners as a whole. I think the dock builders knew they would not win the ability to put the dock back in, but if they could prove that the Assocation has no power to inforce the rule of no docks thru the Park (wetlands) than they would win the case as presented and not have to pay the legal fees. I am not sure on this last part. That is how I came about with this question. The legal fees were not suppose to go past $23,000 or so. Then this huge bill came. The issue is still not over. Now that 135 individuals know we own the park, the dock folks will need ALL our approvals and a DEQ permit to boot. along with a public hearing. I suspect this will break up the assocation since they have little power. The association is also trying to collect on the legal fees from all of us. Now we don't know if they have a right to collect them anymore? it's a mess.
 
chords

chords

Active member
You may find some interesting reading if you can find the orig subdivision rule & regs. In our sub as more full time residents moved in over the years, some decided to create an Association and collect dues. And when after more yrs and some owners refusing to pay, they sued for collection enforcement.
In 1968 not much thought went into subdivision regs. This was a cedar swamp filled in with sand and lots sold. (no DEQ then)
In fact its a one page document "Building and Use Restrictions"

The Judge didnt take long to decide there is no legal Association and dues to be paid.
 
P

polarisrider1

New member
I suspect this law suit will bust up the association. Who are by the way a bunch of retired busy bodies. The problem we are going to run into if the dock goes back in is Liability if someone gets hurt on the dock that crosses the 135 owners property. It could be a sue fest. I can't see 135 insurance riders on a pc. of property that has a 3' wide by 375' long dock on it.
 
T

TDL

New member
Just finished with a law suit with a large corporation and found out justice is served to those with the deepest pockets and 99% of lawyers make the other 1% look bad
 
P

polarisrider1

New member
TDL said:
Just finished with a law suit with a large corporation and found out justice is served to those with the deepest pockets and 99% of lawyers make the other 1% look bad
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with what is right and what is wrong. The most money for lawyers wins. Most cases are won on loop holes and technicalities.
 
A

anonomoose

New member
polarisrider1 said:
I suspect this law suit will bust up the association. Who are by the way a bunch of retired busy bodies. The problem we are going to run into if the dock goes back in is Liability if someone gets hurt on the dock that crosses the 135 owners property. It could be a sue fest. I can't see 135 insurance riders on a pc. of property that has a 3' wide by 375' long dock on it.
Click to expand...

Your association should already have a policy on this, or at least they better have, since creating the association makes them a target for a lawsuit in and of itself.

Have the off water property owners sign a waver of responsibility to the on water owners and association as a condition of use. Then make them provide a policy of their own for 5 million dollars and split the cost between them. Then make sure your association notifies your insurance carrier for your own coverage to be included.

Then let people sue away....

This seems academic to me, since you have said it will require 100% approval of the on water owners. There is NO way that will happen...there is always someone who delights in preventing the majority from getting their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top