Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Nebraska defendant defies court order to remove backyard golf course

This Monday Nov 28, 2016, photo, shows Eric Marsh's backyard with a golf putting green in Omaha, Neb. Marsh, who lost a lawsuit over the golf putting green, pool, fire cauldrons and other outdoor amenities he added to his suburban property has refused to abide by a court order to remove some of the elements in his sports wonderland. (Megan Smith/Omaha World-Herald via AP)

This Monday Nov 28, 2016, photo, shows Eric Marsh’s backyard with a golf putting green in Omaha, Neb. Marsh, who lost a lawsuit over the golf putting green, pool, fire cauldrons and other outdoor amenities he added to his suburban property has refused to abide by a court order to remove some of the elements in his sports wonderland. (Megan Smith/Omaha World-Herald via AP)

An Omaha man’s refusal to remove a putting green and golf amenities from his backyard landed him in the rough with his homeowners association. But even after losing in court, he’s refused to remove the additions deemed impermissible.

Eric Marsh added tee boxes, boulders, fire cauldrons, a sport court, an infinity-edge pool, a putting green and more to his Nebraska home over an eight-year period, according to the Omaha World-Herald. The project cost around $350,000, and he has spent $40,000 defending it.

The Fire Ridge homeowners association sued Marsh four years ago and a judge ruled in their favor, ordering Marsh remove the tee boxes, flag poles ad other items. He was permitted, however, to keep the pool, basketball court, tether-ball pole and hog-roasting pit.

On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court sided with the association, but Marsh has not complied with the court order and is scheduled to appear in court later this month to explain himself. He faces fines or jail time if he is found to be in contempt.

Marsh has said he will continue to fight the case and claims Fire Ridge officials have not enforced neighborhood covenants on other properties. The state’s high court dismissed that argument, finding officials enforced major violations when they knew of them and “there had not, in the past, been a violation of the scope or nature at issue here.”

A board member said the lawsuit “is not personal” but the association wants to protect its approval process.

To purchase a reprint of this article, contact [email protected].