I was amazed to hear this;
A judge told them to fix, tear down, or move their controversial McKennan Park house; now a husband and wife want the South Dakota Supreme Court to decide.
To tell you the truth, I would be surprised if the SDSC even agrees to hear the case. I thought the original hearing was pretty cut and dry, and so did judge Pekas. After losing the initial case, I would have looked at my options to move the house.
But one appeals to a higher court on a question of law and not fact. As long as the defendants had a motion denied by the judge in the circuit court proceedings, then they have grounds for a possible appeal…. Although, the State Supreme Court may deny to hear that appeal or question of law, however…
I can’t believe Sanford has not leaned HARD on Mrs. Sapienza, MD, to cease and desist this ongoing assault of the SD court system, this historical Sioux Falls neighborhood, and the honorable legacy of multiple generations of the McDowell family. She is a stain on the reputation the Sanford medical system has spent so lavishly to establish. Joey Sapienza, take your East Coast big shot bully sensibilities and elitist wife and get the hell out of our town.
A judge can’t uphold city ordinances. The city judicial ordinance is unconstitutional (case history). The suit is neighbor to neighbor. The judge could award for the neighbors real estate value decline but there’s really no evidence without market value proof that can be argued because the city approved the design.
This is a black hole for the neighbor plaintiff. The Big House owners can argue constitutionally. City approved improvements have become part of the real property (state law). It’s like the OJ civil case, a judge can issue a judgement but it doesn’t mean anything. If the improvements remain 7 years, it’s permanent.