What is the precedent for zoning regulations concerning height in rural districts? (class action) I live in a semi-rural area that has requirements of 200 feet of frontage and 100 foot setbacks. Most of the lots are least 2.5 acres. Nevertheless, there is a 30 foot height restriction on buildings. This seems kind of crazy to me. I thought that zoning regulations to &quot;serve a public purpose&quot;. Normally a height restriction is meant to prevent shadowing in urban environments. That is totally irrelevant to my community. Also, as far as trees are concerned, most of the trees in the area are 100-feet high, so they tower over the houses. So, there is zero risk that a house would rise above the trees if the height restriction was eliminated. What is the legal precedent here? Can I just sue the town and get it voided? Note that I am not interested in just building a particular building here: I want to totally overturn the restriction for everybody. So, in that case I prepared to file a class action with multiple residents as the plaintiffs if need be.
Zoning laws can be used to preserve the character of an area Presumably, the semi-rural area you live in is not known for its distinctive high-rise skyline. A height limitation can be a reasonable and sensible way of preventing the construction of a building that doesn’t fit with the overall character. A typical 2 storey dwelling can easily fit under a 30 foot limit, a 3 storey can if you are clever with the design - are there many 4+ storey homes in your area? In addition, most zoning ordinances have procedures to allow the applicant to request and have approved deviations for the rules. So, if you wanted to construct a 33 foot high house that might be OK, a 66 foot one not so much. I can’t see any basis for calling the law arbitrary or capricious. The fact is that high-rise buildings are out of character for acreage living, so it’s not arbitrary. And it has been developed with thought as to what it will achieve so it’s not capricious. Whether a particular decision on an application for an exemption is arbitrary or capricious will depend on the content of the decision.
You might suggest that the neighbor consult with their insurance agent, in case the insurance policy does not cover liability from damage caused by standing trees, especially when the policy holder knows that the tree poses a threat to property. The only thing you can do without the neighbor's cooperation is complain to the city, since it's possible that this situation violates a local ordinance, and the city might order him to remove the tree.
We have made a complaint about this decision to the local administrative and highest courts of Finland. Both of these courts rejected our complaint (the highest court rejected our right to even file a complaint!) without even looking into the details of the matter at hand. Did you hire a lawyer? If the court rejected your complaint without even considering it, it may have been procedurally improper. Generally speaking, once your complaint is rejected by a court with proper jurisdiction, the matter is resolved and you lost. End of story, too bad. You have no recourse but to accept the action of the local government as lawful even though you believe that your case was wrongfully decided. In any case, I doubt that the local government's action in your context is illegal. This is an issue of "condemnation" and not zoning. Generally speaking, the government has a power of eminent domain to seize property for a public use so long as a process is in place for the owner to obtain compensation for the seizure. A government owned recreation center would generally be considered a public use. Certainly, nothing you have described would violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2010/C 83/02, Article 17. As you note: No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. This is a case where the deprivation is in the public interest, in which the Finnish courts have decided that the conditions provided by law for doing so have been met, and in which you acknowledge that you have a right to compensation. Since it appears that the compensation has not yet been determined, it is premature to say that the compensation you receive will not be fair or paid in good time, and you need to participate actively and vigorously in the compensation process to make sure that you do make the best case you can for fair compensation. Also, as you note, this has happened many times in Finland. This strongly support the conclusion that this action is legal under Finnish law, even if you would prefer to interpret its laws in another manner. Of course the compulsory purchase will not be paid with a fair market price but with a much lower price, which is technically a legalized robbery as it has many times occurred in similar cases in Finland. My next step is to file a complaint to the European Union Fundamental Rights commission in hopes that they can help me. An appeal to the European Union sounds futile to me, as everything you have said suggests that your rights under the E.U. Charter have not been violated. Call it robbery if you will from a moral perspective, but as you note, it is legalized robbery in much the same way that taxes are "legalized theft." Your efforts would be better sent hiring a lawyer to help you negotiate with the local government over the price. If you make a strong evidentiary case that the land is worth more than you have been offered, you have a decent chance of getting more than you have been offered, even if it is less than what you believe it is worth. You also have a better case of winning on appeal on the issue of an unfair price in a second instance court in Finland, than you would on the issue of whether the condemnation was legal, on which the settled law in Finland and under international law is that it generally is legal in your circumstances.
The community charges $300 annually for access to the community pool, to which I only actually used the first three years living here. It likely does not matter whether you used the pool or not. I was handed a case by a police officer today saying I have exactly 30 days upon receiving the letter to pay dues for the community pool for the past 8 years that I have not used it. I imagine the result of failure to pay the HOA fee is a lien on the property. I don't know whether foreclosure is an option but it might be. The communities HOA has made it incredibly difficult to contact to ask for a copy of the rules and regulations, since their automated phone system demands a pin of some sort to which it swiftly disconnects you if you do not have it. This is not likely to be a valid excuse for not paying the HOA dues. You almost certainly owe them regardless and you probably also owe any late charges or penalties associated with not paying on time. My question is, can they legally force me to pay this fee? Nobody can force you to pay. But if they present their case in court and win, the judge can force you to pay, have your assets seized, garnish your wages, or put you in jail if you refuse. That comes pretty close. Is there another way to obtain a copy of the community rules and regulations? Of course. Send certified letters requesting the CCRs to: The HOA office The government office where the deed is recorded If the CCRs are valid and binding something to that effect will be recorded on the deed. If so, the current valid and binding CCRs may be filed with the government or may only be available from the HOA. I am not a lawyer. If you have $2,400 to pay I suggest you pay it and stay current on all future payments. HOAs that actually notice missing fees are not to be trifled with. If you think they are making your life miserable now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Actions in common law tort exist for both scenarios. Potential torts are negligence, trespass to chattel, and/or conversion. Putting the largely apparent tort of negligence aside, since that is nearly always available when something and/or someone is damaged by another (requiring only the [negligent] act, causation and damages) I'll focus on the other tort potentially applicable to scenario 1. The minority rule concerning trespass to chattel can be established even when the interference is negligent, whereas the majority rule requires intent to deprive. Interestingly, when the Restatement 2d of Torts talks about minority rule vs. majority rule, it really means "least often applied" vs. "most often applied", rather than merely "in some (fewer or greater) defined jurisdiction(s)". With these type of uncommonly pled torts, you could find a huge jurisdiction like California having lower courts (especially small claims or district courts) applying both the minority rule in some courts and the majority rule in others. This, all within one judicial jurisdiction if that state's law court has not weighed in on their interpretation of preference. The Restatement 2d (Second) of Torts § 217 and §218 define liability in trespass to chattel as "intentionally (negligently - minority rule ): (a) dispossess(ing) the other of the chattel, or; (b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or; (c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or; (d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest. Trespass to chattel can consist of mere "intermeddling with or the limited use of the possession" and no damage need occur to the property, as damage is per se; however in your scenario, actual liability would occur in the destruction of the possession. The 2nd scenario would lie in the more serious tort of conversion. The tort of conversion will always requires intent to deprive the owner of his property, and the majority view is that the deprivation is intended to be total or forever (whether by continued deprivation or by destruction). There are 3 elements required to establish conversion: plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the alleged conversion; defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiff's property rights; damage(s). While anticipating the follow-up question to either scenario, being "what about the fact that you didn't take the ball, but rather it ended up on your land, and shouldn't that count for something"...the answer (to the unasked question :~) is no. The act of taking possession over property to satisfy the necessary prong in both torts may take any number of forms, but need not be wrongful to begin with. All that is required to establish possessory control over the chattel in a tortious manner is merely interfering with the plaintiff's right of possession, which is a wrongful deprivation of something the owner was entitled to possess (so in other words, even if you didn't go and take it, once you know it's there, it's not yours, and you seek to keep it, either temporarily, permanently &ndash; the act of wrongful possession has occurred. The way the property was acquired is not at issue. Conversion and Trespass in Chattel are often spoken of interchangeably despite the fact that they are different. The difference between a cause of action for conversion and one for trespass against chattel is measured only by the degree of interference with the plaintiff's rights in their chattel. While the distinction seems subtle in a vacuum, in the old English cases where these torts were typically decided, conversion was one small step from criminal activity, whereas today conversion may be the civil adjunct to a criminal suit. *for those not familiar: chattel is any possession that is not real estate.
Yes, barring any statutory prohibitions against such a rule. I would be very surprised if any existed. They don't exist in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Look up the local by-laws to be sure.
my understanding is that once a class action case is settled another similar class action suit cannot be brought forward. Is this correct? A settlement or judgment in a class action is binding against everyone in the class that didn't affirmatively opt out against the defendants in the lawsuit involving the same kind of wrongdoing by the defendants (e.g. a class action lawsuit over Seroquel wouldn't bar you from bringing a lawsuit over some different defective drug made by the same company). There is generally a deadline to opt out of a class action lawsuit which is shared with the public by publication and if you opt out before that date by filing a document with the court, you aren't bound by the class action settlement and can bring your own lawsuit instead. I was never a member of the original class action settlement. If this is correct, does it bar me from pursuing an individual lawsuit? The fact that you didn't receive settlement funds or have any communications with the class action plaintiff's firm doesn't mean that you weren't a member of the class covered by the class action. You need to read the definition of the members of the class in the class action lawsuit that was settled or resolved with a judgment. If you fit in that definition and didn't affirmatively opt out of the lawsuit by filing a document with the court, you cannot bring an individual lawsuit against the company. On the other hand, if you don't fit in the definition of people who were part of the class defined in the class action lawsuit, then you can bring an individual lawsuit if it is not time barred and assuming that there is still a solvent defendant to sue that is left. Nine or more years would be more than the statute of limitations in most states, and many companies go out of business or reorganize in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy after settling or losing at court in a class action lawsuit, however, which would bar an individual lawsuit. For example, maybe the class action lawsuit has a class defined as "people who took doses of the drug Seroquel manufactured in Chicago, Illinois by a subcontractor of Astra Zeneca from 2007 to 2010." But, you got your doses of the drug from a plant that manufactured it in New York City. You would not be part of the class and could bring your own lawsuit if the statute of limitations has not expired. Realistically, it sounds to me like you were probably within the definition of the class covered by the lawsuit, you didn't affirmatively opt out because you didn't learn about the lawsuit in time, you didn't receive any of the settlement funds for some reason even though you should have (most likely because you never learned of the settlement and thus didn't contact the court or the class action plaintiff's attorney), and the statute of limitations to bring an individual lawsuit against the drug company has probably expired. It wouldn't hurt to contact the class action plaintiff's law firm, however, to see if any settlement funds are still available to be paid from the settlement that was reached in 2010.
The simple answer is, get a lawyer and explain your case, and pay him to solve the problem (or tell you that it's hopeless). The two main questions would be whether the appraiser have any duty to you, and whether his action was within the scope of what he is supposed to do. If you hired the appraiser, he has a duty to you. I will assume it was you that hired the appraiser (if it was the bank, that's a different matter). Then the question is whether his action or non-action is within the scope of the job. If the place is infested with termites, that is probably irrelevant because an appraiser is not a termite inspector. On the other hand, if he failed to measure the structure, or erred substantially in the measurement, that kind of negligence could be legally actionable. The seller (not the appraiser) is required to "disclose", so it's not obvious that there is any thing that an appraiser could disclose that relates to a map.