Told Their Treehouse Must Go, Owners Appeal to Supreme Court
Lynn Tran and Richard Hazen built a Florida beachfront treehouse that would be the envy of any child. It's got two levels, hammocks and windows looking out on the Gulf of Mexico.
January 08, 2018 at 04:22 PM
4 minute read
Lynn Tran and Richard Hazen built a Florida beachfront treehouse that would be the envy of any child. It's got two levels, hammocks and windows looking out on the Gulf of Mexico.
But the hangout has cost the couple a handsome sum: about $30,000 to construct and probably five times that in legal fees as they've fought local authorities over it, Tran said. Now, they're at their last stop, the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless the high court intervenes, the treehouse must be torn down.
The justices had their first opportunity to consider taking the case at a closed-door conference Friday, and a decision on whether they will weigh in could come this week.
The couple's lawyer, David Levin, acknowledges the case is unlikely to be accepted by the justices, who only hear argument in about 80 of the thousands of cases they're asked to take each year. But he argues that his clients' rights were violated when a Florida court “rubber-stamped” a ruling proposed by the city of Holmes Beach without any evidence of independent consideration.
Tran and Hazen haven't been willing to give up on the structure she calls their “getaway.”
“Part of me still believes there's got to be justice out there and we didn't do anything wrong,” Tran said in a telephone interview.
Tran and her husband run a rental property called Angelinos Sea Lodge on Anna Maria Island on Florida's west coast. They have a house on their property and four rental units.
Before they began constructing the treehouse around an Australian Pine on their property in 2011, Hazen asked the city whether they needed a permit. The answer: No.
So, with some help from the internet, Tran dreamed up the structure, which took six months to build.
Soon, however, the city got an anonymous complaint about the treehouse. After an investigation, the city found the couple did actually need to go through the permitting process. And it turns out the treehouse was in an area where building is prohibited because of a city setback. The couple hoped to get around that by having local voters weigh in, but courts told them no.
Holmes Beach Mayor Bob Johnson noted in a telephone interview that courts have sided with the city and he called the continued legal wrangling “quite honestly a waste of time.”
“For some reason these people have this fixation on it,” he said.
Tran says she never expected such a drawn-out fight and that in hindsight the couple could have taken the money they've spent on the treehouse, gone somewhere else and built an actual house.
It's still costing the couple. They're accumulating a $50 a day fine for not taking down the treehouse, a fine that's now tens of thousands of dollars.
Tran says she's afraid to think about it. Until the high court acts, she's enjoying the treehouse on sunny days, meditating there or napping in a hammock. The couple doesn't have any children of their own enjoying the treehouse and renters aren't allowed up for liability reasons, but Tran says guests and beachgoers often admire the structure.
“It's kind of fun to have around,” she said.
If the treehouse ultimately has to go, there's a lurking irony for the couple. To take down the structure, they'll need the one thing they didn't have before they began putting it up: a city permit.
Jessica Gresko reports for the Associated Press.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLocal Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
3 minute readGreenberg Traurig Combines Digital Infrastructure and Real Estate Groups, Anticipating Uptick in Demand
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readPlaintiffs Allege Carollo Retaliated Over Bayfront Trust Accounting Discoveries
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
- 2AI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
- 3A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
- 4‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
- 5With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250