- 13 -
moving in. An architect was hired and the plans were made and
revamped; however, the major renovations were not begun or made
before the June 21, 1990, deadline. Confronted with this
situation, petitioners moved into the Fairway residence in late
May 1990 and used the property in a manner and amount that would
satisfy its use as a permanent residence under the statute and
then began the more extensive renovations which created the
inconvenience and/or forced limited use of the Fairway residence.
In that regard, the residence’s master bedroom and bathroom were
under construction. Additionally, a garage was being constructed
adjacent to the residence. These renovations created conditions
which, at very least, made the Fairway residence less than
habitable. At the end of June 1990, after petitioners had used
Fairway as their principal residence, they obtained the building
permits and the extensive renovation was begun. It was after
that time they utilized the townhouse to ameliorate the
inconvenience caused by the extensive renovations. They argued
that their use of Fairway was continuous in order to show that
the renovations were begun before June 21, 1990, and that there
was no change in the residence's condition or their usage.5 The
5 In connection with that argument, petitioners dated
numerous checks (that were eventually used to pay for
renovations) June 21, 1990 (the last day in the 2-year period),
but did not negotiate them and/or the checks were not cashed by
the payees until substantially after June 21, 1990. Most of the
"June 21 checks" were cashed by the construction/payees during
July and August 1990.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011