Costly Five-Year Legal Battle Over Cottage Ends

     The United States District Court this week handed down an injunction ordering the Town of Sandwich to issue a building permit for a cottage on Ploughed Neck Road.
     For nearly five years, homeowner Patricia A. Cyrus has been engaged in battle with the town both inside and outside of court, trying to get the necessary permits so that she can restore her home to a habitable condition.
     Ms. Cyrus’s ordeal began on October 2, 2003, when a tenant living in her cottage put a cigarette out in an ashtray that accidentally fell onto the couch and started a fire. While the interior of the cottage was badly damaged, the building sustained no structural damage.  Wanting and needing to repair the home as well as make some cosmetic upgrades such as adding new cabinets and countertops in the small kitchenette, Ms. Cyrus requested a building permit from the town.
     But her request was denied. According to her attorney, Julie C. Molloy of East Sandwich, the denial was based on a zoning bylaw that references houses built after 1954. According to Ms. Molloy, because this individual home, which sits on a lot smaller in size than the required 60,000 square feet, the building inspector determined that the home was essentially “unlawful,” and therefore, no permit could be issued. Ms. Molloy said that bylaw does not even pertain to this property since the house was built prior to the 1954 cutoff date.
     Thus began the legal battle between Ms. Cyrus and the town.
     Even though a US District judge ruled this past April that a building permit should be issued, the town filed an appeal to that judgment. This week, that original judgment was upheld. Although Ms. Molloy is satisfied that her client won her case, she believes the entire legal fight has been a waste of time and taxpayers’ money.
     Ms. Molloy estimates that her client has spent nearly $50,000 in legal fees just to bring her home back to the condition that it was before the fire occurred. Beyond that, she said, her client has lost a significant amount of money, to the tune of $900 a month over the span of five years, in rental payments.
     Town Manager George H. Dunham said that this particular case cost the town between $10,000 and $15,000 in legal fees. He explained that the town has litigation insurance, which covers the costs of legal fees in cases such as this. He said the case was turned over to the insurance company that provides legal services. The town pays a $10,000 deductible and all charges above and beyond are paid by the insurance company. He explained that any money paid on top of that $10,000 was because of some legal issues that occurred after the insurance company’s legal team had completed its work on the case. He said the town’s counsel, Kopelman & Paige, stepped in to address the legal issues.
     Ms. Molloy further questioned how much money the town has paid battling other legal cases, especially those that pertain to affordable housing projects. “Every single affordable housing decision that is made gets appealed and Kopelman & Paige fights it to the death. This is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money,” she said.
     Ms. Molloy said every time an employee from the town picks up the phone to confer with legal counsel, the “meter begins running.”
     Mr. Dunham pointed out, however, that this year alone, he returned $12,000 of the $200,000 budgeted for legal fees, an account that covers all legal costs.
     He went on to say that the town pays Kopelman & Paige a rate of $165 per hour, which is lower than the average rate of $200 per hour.
     Ms. Molloy responded to that rate, saying, “They low-ball their rates and litigate everything to death.”
     Mr. Dunham pointed out that if the zoning board of appeals makes a decision and a resident decides to appeal that, the town stands behind and supports the board’s decision. 
     While Ms. Cyrus was expected to pick up her building permit yesterday morning, her legal battles are not quite over. Ms. Molloy said she will return to court next month on an issue pertaining to the use of her client’s cottage. She said there is still a question of whether the home is considered a seasonal property, which can only be used from November through March, or if it is considered a year-round property.
     Ms. Molloy said for a number of years, that cottage and others around it have been used year-round and now the town is trying to step in and change the use to seasonal.
     Ms. Molloy does not blame the town manager for all of these litigation fees but said somebody should be better scrutinizing the decision to litigate so often. “Who is paying attention to the legal fees we incur? Who is minding the fort,” she questioned.