Two persons J and L hired a contractor to build a house. After the construction was completed, it was found that the roof was 7ft higher than the limit. The officer directed to remove the exceeding height. The board granted the variance as the hardship was created due to the fault of the contractor. Neighbors appealed to the court stating that the hardship was self-created. The court passed the decision in favor of the neighbors. To find: The judgement of the court.

Question

Sam and Eleanor Gaito purchased a home from Howard Frank Auman, Jr., in the spring of 2011. Auman had completed the construction of the house in November 2006. In the interim, three different parties had lived in the house for brief periods, but Auman had retained ownership. The last tenants, the Ashleys, experienced difficulties with the home’s air conditioning system. Repairs were attempted, but no effort was made to change the capacity of the air conditioning unit. When the Gaitos moved into the house in June 2011, they too had problems with the air conditioning. The system created only a ten-degree difference between the outside and inside temperatures. The Gaitos complained to Auman on a number of occasions, but extensive repairs failed to correct the cooling problem. In May 2014, the Gaitos brought an action against Auman, alleging that the purchase price of the home included central air conditioning and that Auman had breached the implied warranty of habitability. At trial, an…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 26, Problem 4BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Two persons J and L hired a contractor to build a house. After the construction was completed, it was found that the roof was 7ft higher than the limit. The officer directed to remove the exceeding height. The board granted the variance as the hardship was created due to the fault of the contractor. Neighbors appealed to the court stating that the hardship was self-created. The court passed the decision in favor of the neighbors.

To find: The judgement of the court.

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Two persons J and L hired a contractor to build a home. After the construction was completed, it was found that the roof was 7ft higher than the limit. The officer directed to remove the exceeding height. The board granted the variance as the hardship was created due to the fault of the contractor. Neighbors appealed to the court stating that the hardship was self-created. The court passed the decision in favor of the neighbors.

To find: Legitimate grounds for granting a variance.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Sam and Eleanor Gaito purchased a home from Howard Frank Auman, Jr., in the spring of 2011. Auman had completed the construction of the house in November 2006. In the interim, three different parties had lived in the house for brief periods, but Auman had retained ownership. The last tenants, the Ashleys, experienced difficulties with the home’s air conditioning system. Repairs were attempted, but no effort was made to change the capacity of the air conditioning unit. When the Gaitos moved into the house in June 2011, they too had problems with the air conditioning. The system created only a ten-degree difference between the outside and inside temperatures. The Gaitos complained to Auman on a number of occasions, but extensive repairs failed to correct the cooling problem. In May 2014, the Gaitos brought an action against Auman, alleging that the purchase price of the home included central air conditioning and that Auman had breached the implied warranty of habitability. At trial, an…

Atlantic Cement operated a large cement plant. Neighboring landowners sued for damages and an injunction, claiming that their properties were injured by the dirt, smoke, and vibrations coming from the plant. The lower court found that the plant constituted a nuisance and granted temporary damages but refused to grant an injunction because the benefits of operating the plant outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs’ properties. The landowners appealed. Does the plant constitute a nuisance? Should it be shut down?

An unmarried cohabitant has the following goals: (1) to leave all of his property to his domestic partner at his death, and (2) to avoid probate. He currently does not have a will, but recognizes that he needs an estate plan. Which of the following techniques will satisfy his goals? A)He should obtain a life insurance policy and name his domestic partner as the beneficiary. B)He should title his real property as tenants in common with his domestic partner. C)He should fully fund a revocable living trust that designates his domestic partner as the beneficiary. D)He should make lifetime gifts in the amount of the annual exclusion to avoid gift tax and preserve his estate tax exclusion amount.