The ladies trying to sue their neighbor over his garage finally got their verdict
If you didn’t catch our piece on the Williams Garage struggle, allow us to ...
If you didn’t catch our piece on the Williams Garage struggle, allow us to catch you up to speed (or the video below might help too). If you don’t feel like spending the 8 minutes to watch all of what happened, basically this older gentleman built himself a pretty kick ass garage and used it for what many of us do – to work on his vehicles and help some friends out.
When a couple of neighbors with nothing better to do saw what was going on when the natural traffic was flowing in and out, they decided that it was time to split hairs and make this wrench addict pay for what he had done (pretty much nothing). They would head to the building codes to pick the building apart and ended up taking the man to court. We’re pleased to report that these nasally women got completely owned by the legal system.
Basically, when the whole ordeal ended up actually going to court, the plaintiffs would have their motions denied on a variety of attempted charges. Each one of them will get you more angry than the last but it’s all evened out when the verdict is reached.
A direct quote from the judge stated “I conclude that the provisions of the Zoning Code that the Plaintiffs allege Williams has violated are not Code provisions intended to protect their safety. Thus, violations of those Code provisions, if such violations exist, are insufficient to support a finding of nuisance per se. …
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to remove Defendant’s Pole Building is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the use of that building for the non-commercial enjoyment of the Defendant, by its use for hobby auto maintenance and repair, is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request that I order the Defendant to remove the ornamental signs on his property is DENIED. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Defendant has created a nuisance per se, and no relief under that theory is available to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ request that the Defendant pay their legal fees is DENIED. The parties should provide me with a form of Order encompassing the findings of this Memorandum Opinion together with those in my Memorandum Opinion of June 23, 2016.”
In short, they were shut down. So what was the garage owner to do in a situation like this where he was found completely innocent and left with a stack of legal fees to defend himself? Well, that’s where the story gets even cooler. A fund was set up to support the cause through crowd funding website, Go Fund Me, and people from all around the community came together and raised an astonishing $57,295 of the $40,000 goal to help him out after stumbling across the story almost a million times in less than a month across the web.
See? The internet is good for more than cat videos after all. When someone really needs help, it can be used to bring folks together for the advancement of the car community.