Hey Granite, Happy Birthday "To You" on Friday Sept. 30th!!! I just looked at your pictures again. Brought back allot of memories for me with a shopping center going in behind the rear of my previous house in PA. One of my "many"..... big concerns was the view I would see. You are good to go at.......... "Ground Level"........ with a privacy fence, (ground level....while you are out working in the yard). The windows in your house, visualize your view when inside looking out. The height of whatever you plant should be a consideration when it comes to the views from inside of the house. I always think "Resale Value". I understand your plight. Everything you knew.........has just changed in the name of progress! Depending on your area and the zoning laws...(purchase their book of rules ....for a $$........fee). You may be able to request extra buffer zone coverage from the developer. Don't stand back quietly. No one can read your mind! They ,(The Powers That Be) expect everyone to accept their decisions. Be an ever present "friendly" reminder to the local government that your quality of life has been severely altered. I have many stories about the development that went in behind my house..... "Do Not Roll Over"... speak up, loud, factually, (use their own rules) and often....carry before and after pictures in the car. Speak to a lawyer, if you feel that you have been cheated from the "Conditions of Law" (that the local government wrote in regards to this particular development). I still have the blueprints to the shopping center ...that the local government had to provide to me ....at my request. Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease! It worked for me!!!........Keep us posted........Dianne

saftgeek - I hate to admit it but you are all too correct about far too many attorneys! I was a high school teacher for 20 years before deciding to go to law school and I have been deeply appalled by the how truly unethical and dishonest some lawyers are. In the six years I've been practicing law, I've run into more dishonest, downright sleezy lawyers than I met incompetant teachers in twenty years of teaching school... and people are always knocking teachers for being incompetant! Shyster lawyers make me ashamed of this profession just as incompetant teachers sometimes made me ashamed of the teaching profession. I would urge you or anyone else who has evidence of a lawyer behaving dishonestly or unethically to report them to their state bar association. It might not do any good but then again, it just might. At least in Texas, I think our state bar tries to disbar the unethical lawyers whenever they can find them. It certainly sounds like your ex-boss was exactly that type. I also truly am not trying to paint GCs as dishonest. I believe the vast majority are honest folks who do their best to do a good job when building a home and, if they make mistakes, try their best to fix them. BUT, as in all professions, there are some people building homes that are either lazy, dishonest, or so downright disorganized that the homeowner who ends up hiring one of them needs to be able to go to court and get help. And, unfortunately, the contract promulgated by the Texas Association of Builders is specifically designed to protect these bottom-feeding GCs from facing the music for their bad behaviour. The funny thing is, I KNOW that it was the TAB's lawyers who drafted the d--n contract that protects the bad builders, so when I'm knocking the contract, I'm also slamming some of the members of my own profession! I actually suspect that most builders who use the TAB form contract do so because it is available to them cheaply and they don't know any more about what it really says than the homeowner does. And, so long as there are no major problems with the build - nobody is any the worse off. But, I defy any honest person who has ever READ the TAB contract to argue with a straight face that it is a fair and balanced contract. Among other things, it requires the homeowner to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Basically an implied warranty of habitablity means that courts have said when two parties enter into a contract for one to build a home for the other, there is an implied understanding between them that the finished home will be inhabitable. The owner doesn't have to make sure to insist that language be put into the contract SAYING that the house must be able to be lived in when comleted...the courts will assume that since the contract was for the building of a home, the finished product must be something one can inhabit or it is simply not a "home." But, just in case someone WANTS just a shell - or something like that - to be built, courts will allow the parties to agree to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Asking the homeowner to waive the implied warranty of habitablity might be fair if the homeowner wanted to build something totally new and different and the builder said, "you know, I can build that for you but I don't think it'll be something you can live in when I get done, are you SURE that's what you want?" But, I think you would have to agree that, except in those rare instances, a house should be inhabitable, just like a car should be driveable, a suit should be wearable, and a wedding cake should be edible. Would you agree to buy a new car from a manufacturer who insisted that you agree to waive the "implied warranty of driveability"? Would you purchase a suit from a tailor who refused to warrant that it would be wearable? Would you order a wedding cake from a baker who refused to guarantee that it would be edible? Why would you buy a home from someone who refused to warrant that it would be habitable????? Nevertheless, the Texas Association of Builders - with the help of its attorneys no doubt! - realized that implied warranties can be waived and that most homeowners don't ever really read or understand the contract they sign. So they put language into the form contract that waives the warranty of habitablility on every single home built under it. That means the homeowner may think he is contracting for a turn-key home but, even if the house he gets is so defective that he cannot possibly live in it - say the sewage pipe has broken in the wall so that there that raw sewage has contaminated all the insulation - the homeowner cannot argue that the builder breached the contract by building an UNIHABITABLE house. Fair????? The TAB contract also requires that the owner agree upfront to "binding arbitration" in the event of a dispute. This doesn't sound too bad...unless you happen to know a couple of facts about binding arbitration. First, arbitration is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than small claims court even though most building disputes are going to be over amounts small enough have brought the claim in small claims court. Second, arbitrators are selected and PAID by the parties to the dispute which means that arbitrators make more money if they are selected for more cases. If an arbitrator wants future work, they have to make sure that the party that is more likely to bring them future business is happy. Care to guess which party is more likely to NEED to hire an arbitrator for a second or third or fourth construction dispute? Some studies have shown that homeowners win less than 5% of claims that go to arbitration but win about half of claims that are tried in a court of law. Even those few homeowners who are nominal winners in arbitration almost never win enough money to actually repair their homes! The TAB contract also requires that the builder receive his final payment, in full, (i.e. NO RETAINAGE) at the time of the final walk-through even though it also specifies that a punch list of items to be corrected/completed/repaired will be made at this same time. In theory the builder is supposed to return and finish the punch list. But, WHY should the unscrupulous builder bother? After all, he has already been paid in full AND the homeowner can't even sue him in small claims court due to the binding arbitration clause I already mentioned? Do you think that is fair? I could go on and on about other clauses that are in the TAB contract but I suspect I've made my point. A builder who insists on using the TAB contract after having some of its many unfair clauses pointed out to him may not actually BE dishonest but, IMHO, neither is he the kind of straight shooter I really want to deal with. Straight shooters are willing to play on a level playing field.

I was perusing my kane county illinois codes and I came across this and thought of this post. Maybe your area has a similar ordinance you can trump up to solve your problems: Codes: (8) a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, to operate or permit operation of any sound amplification system in a vehicle or on property, or to perform lawn mowing or utilize power or nonpower tools, or to operate off road vehicles, including, but not limited to, off highway motorcycles, minibikes, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles or other like or similar vehicles, on private property where the noise from such vehicle or activity is such as to unreasonably disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity; and when after written or verbal warning from law enforcement personnel the owner or operator fails to cease and desist from such operation or activity. The terms "motorcycles", "off road motorcycles", and "all-terrain vehicles" shall have the same meaning as in the Illinois motor vehicle code. "Snowmobile" shall have the same meaning as in the snowmobile registration and safety act. b. To make, continue, create or cause to be made or continued any loud or raucous noise. c. To make, continue, create or cause to be made or continued any noise which is harsh, prolonged, unnatural, or unusual in time or place as to occasion unreasonable discomfort to any persons within the neighborhood from which the noise emanates or as to unreasonably interfere with the peace and comfort of neighbors or their guests or operators or customers in places of business, or as to detrimentally or adversely affect such residences or places of business. d. Factors for determining whether a sound is unreasonably loud or raucous may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The proximity of the sound to sleeping facilities, whether residential or commercial; 2. The land use, nature and zoning of the area from which the sound emanates and the area where it is received or perceived; 3. The time of day the sound occurs; 4. The duration of the sound; 5. Whether the sound is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; 6. Any violation of section 12-602 of the Illinois motor vehicle code; 7. Removal or modification of adequate sound suppression equipment as set forth in section 4-1(E) of the snowmobile registration and safety act.

First, he is not allowed to kick you out of your home. Even if you were living in the trailer for free without any commitment from him, he can't just demand you leave. There is a process in all fifty states for removing people from their home and in none of those is demanding you are "out in the spring" one of them. Next, what you are describing is a contract for acquiring the land. All real estate contracts are required by the statute of frauds to be in writing. However, there is an exception to the statute of frauds for action of the parties. In other words, people can't make an agreement, allow you to spend money towards that agreement and then revoke it because it was not in writing. The smart move at this point is to get him to acknowledge the agreement via text or email. E.g. "When we paid the $4,000 you were behind in your mortgage and then took over your mortgage, you said we could live here and then inherit 10.5 acres of land. So you can't change your mind now and decide you don't want us out. We already agreed." If your father admits to that agreement, even if he just says something like, "that was before you...." then that is the ball game. You win. He will likely not be able to evict you without paying a significant amount of money and the judge is unlikely to issue the detainer before trying some sort of mediation. Even then he is likely to grant you a judgment against your father for any money you paid on his behalf (but not yours). Finally, the question isn't really whether your dad has the right to kick you out (he probably doesn't), the question is can you make him realize it without spending a lot of money. I suspect that you can find an attorney and spend a few hundred dollars to have him write a demand letter that will back your father down. If this is happening now, it will likely happen again, so I would advise getting some legal advice now. If you can't afford it, contact your state's bar association and see if you can find someone to help you pro bono. Good luck