A Manhattan couple were sued by their downstairs neighbors for allegedly allowing too much noise that might have been better muffled with carpets. They approached a well-known local reporter who did a segment in his “Shame! Shame! Shame!” consumer series critical of the suit. The plaintiffs proceeded to file a new $52 million suit against their upstairs neighbor for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which a judge has now dismissed. And now the defendant wife and her husband have sued the condo board for removing her from the board, apparently in reaction to the publicity. [TVSpy]
Posts Tagged ‘real estate’
February 7 roundup
- Paper by Lester Brickman previews his much-anticipated new book Lawyer Barons [Mass Tort Lit, SSRN] More: Sheila Scheuerman, TortsProf.
- “A Players’ Class Action Against the NFL for Concussions?” [Russell Jackson]
- C’mon, DoJ, stop spreading domestic violence myths [Christina Hoff Sommers, USA Today]
- “Historians as Experts: A Plea for Help” [Bill Childs, TortsProf; related, Nathan Schachtman]
- Might not really work, though: “A call for aviation liability reform in South Dakota” [PoL]
- “Chevron Turns Tables on Ecuador Plaintiffs; Sues Them” [WSJ Law Blog, ShopFloor, more, yet more, NYLJ]
- Hedge funder plays race card against NYC’s famed Dakota co-op. How plausibly? [Business Insider]
- N.C. official: citizen who challenged road plans might be practicing engineering without a license [N&O]
$100K battle over pet in condo
A Queens, N.Y. condo owner won her battle to keep her teacup terrier on the premises after a judge found that the condo board had not, as required, obtained the votes of 80 percent of unit owners before adopting a no-pet rule. “The board spent $100,000 on lawyers and the cost is now being passed on to the condo owners — roughly $4,200 apiece. ‘Nobody in the [building] is too happy with me right now because it’s costing everybody a lot of money and it’s not fair to the homeowners, I feel terrible,’ [the winner] said.” [CBS New York]
November 26 roundup
- Reason TV interviews Richard Epstein;
- On the SEC’s big new “insider trading” sweep [Ribstein, Bainbridge, Lambert, Salmon, more Ribstein]
- Losing = winning? Ambitious claim for fees in environmental case [California Civil Justice, scroll]
- “Unintended consequences department: canceled flights” [Ted at PoL] And check out Ted’s new TSA Abuse Blog, on one of the hottest issues of the moment. More on that from Popehat and Simple Justice;
- H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home Design Act, would compel handicap accessibility in private home design, yet another dreadful idea from Rep. Jan Schakowsky of CPSIA fame [AmendTheCPSIA]
- “This place would be a shoplifter’s paradise (and a liability insurance abuser’s motherlode) in the United States, but we were in Japan, where they don’t seem to worry as much about that kind of thing.” [Mark Frauenfelder, BoingBoing, on the Showa Kan museum of everyday midcentury life in Takayama]
- UK: “I moved out for decorators and squatters took over my house” [Evening Standard]
- From the ruins of Pompeii, a reflection on government and disaster relief [Dum Spiro Spero]
Home fire sprinkler mandates
The government is playing more of a role these days in designing your next house. I’ve got some thoughts up at Cato at Liberty on the politics of it all.
April 4 roundup
- “Wisconsin law prof has name legally changed to Mitch — just Mitch” [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via Obscure Store]
- Undue encumbrance? “Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale” [Techdirt]
- It seems the anonymous online comments were made from the judge’s online account [Cleveland Plain Dealer] More: ABA Journal.
- NLJ reports on surge of patent false marking suits [earlier here, here, here, etc.]
- Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, often mentioned in this space, will resign to run for Arizona attorney general [KPHO]
- NY Times last month: those awful meanies who criticize litigation are going to harp on hot chicken sandwich case [WSJ Law Blog] You mean like…?
- “British Libel Reform: Finally to Be a Reality?” [Citizen Media Law]
- Trademark case settlement: “North Face, South Butt Agree to Turn Other Cheek” [Baxter, American Lawyer, earlier here and here]
EPA vs. older homes
New federal regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, aimed at curbing exposure to dust that might contain lead paint, will result in federal certification of many building-maintenance specialties and step up pressure against informal unlicensed suppliers of handyman and carpentry services:
On April 22, the Environmental Protection Agency is slated to enact rules requiring EPA certification for contractors working on homes built before lead paint was banned in 1978. The rule, aimed at limiting exposure to lead, applies to carpenters, plumbers, heating and air conditioning workers, window installers and others.
Two-thirds of U.S. homes and apartments (78 million out of 120 million) were built before 1978, says Calli Schmidt of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), citing Census Bureau data. She says half of the pre-1978 homes don’t contain lead but the rule, depending on implementation, might apply to all of them.
Making it unlawful to practice home renovation without federal certification will assuredly reduce the supply and raise the cost of renovations, the extent of the shift varying perhaps from one community to another depending on how professionalized the relevant markets already are. One result of shifting the cost curve will be to encourage teardowns of otherwise sound housing stock. Some other properties that remain occupied will simply go without renovations and repairs, with unpredictable (but probably not good) consequences for health and safety. [USA Today via Nick Gillespie, Reason] As for the prospect that the federal government will apply any sort of common-sense appraisal of the actual benefits of spending millions to avoid infinitesimal or nonexistent lead exposures, I’ll believe that when they fix CPSIA. More: WSJ (sub-only)
“Wealthy Couple Sued For Installing Ikea Kitchen”
It “did not rise to the level of a kitchen suitable for a property located at 50 Gramercy Park North,” says the realty group that rented the apartment from the owners. P.S. New York Daily News link mistakenly omitted before (h/t Bob Montgomery).
“Obese woman wins human rights fight for parking spot”
Obesity-as-disability in Canada: “Marise Myrand said her condo association discriminated against her by denying her a parking spot closer to her building entrance.” She’s now won a favorable ruling from the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal and a $10,000 settlement. [The Globe and Mail, h/t reader Vicky G.]
February 10 roundup
- Man who shot dogs sues blogger whose critical account of episode allegedly put him in false light [Christopher Comins v. Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis, Florida, Citizen Media Law; Greenfield (free speech attorney Marc Randazza assisting VanVoorhis)]
- Appeals court revives Pennsylvania couple’s trespass suit against Google over Google Street View pics of their home and pool [Legal Intelligencer, ABA Journal]
- “Rich Guy Sues to Keep $380/Month Rent on Park Ave.” [Gothamist]
- “Think Davis-Bacon on steroids” — Obamaites mull SEIU-driven “High Road” policy to push federal contractors into union practices [Daily Caller, Michael Fox via PoL]
- Federal judge’s 49-page sanctions order blasts Adorno & Yoss, two lawyers and client over bad faith conduct of trade dress suit [Fulton County Daily Report]
- “Terrorist who killed US medic wants C$10 million from Canadian taxpayers” [CanWest/Canada.com via David Frum]
- “Massachusetts Woman Sues Real Estate Broker over Second-Hand Smoke in Condo” [Somin, Volokh; case settles]
- “Our litigation process encourages radical polarization” — part II of Q&A with author Philip Howard [WSJ Law Blog, link to part I]