Dagsrevyen anchor Jon Gelius explains in Oslo District Court that he can not bear more of neighbor dispute and that is why he sued the neighbor, Sølvguttene-conductor Fredrik Otterstad .
Jon Gelius (51) and Fredrik Otterstad (34) have long argued over the division of the communal garden at Roa in Oslo, without agreeing.
An agreement from 1997 secured the former owner of Section 1, which is half of Otterstad, larger usufruct over the garden than stake implies, mean Gelius.
Today met the implacable neighbors apart Oslo District Court. The day ended with a visit to the neighbors’ garden at Roa, where the development of Otterstad half of the yellow two-family house is clearly underway. When Sølvguttene-conductor arrived home just before three o’clock, he went immediately into the garden and drew a police ribbon through it, to make visible the distribution Gelius claims.
Much of the inspection was completed indoors, before the parties made a quick tour looking at the house’s entrance. There are only a few steps separates the doors of the two neighbors.
Parties moved then into the garden, on Gelius’ side, before they parted. None of them wanted to comment on the case to VG.
NABO CONFLICT: Fredrik Otterstad (right) – here with friend and belongs Jakob Steina – started the inspection to pull a ribbon over the garden to mark what part Jon Gelius claims.
Photo: Frode Hansen , VG
Got property map
Gelius told in his party posts in court that he and his wife Anne was on display on 26 May 2007. They liked the property in Linhusveien 22 at Roa very well, let quickly in a bid that was accepted following day.
– We went through the contract with the seller and broker, but was not submitted any document that showed a bias of outdoor area, claims Gelius.
7. June the couple Gelius submitted a map of the property.
– The map showed how lopsided division of the outdoor area is. I took a phone but was told that the documents were registered and that we had nothing to offer. It had to deal with, says news anchor.
Was happy
Gelius tells the court that he and his wife were very happy after the purchase contract was entered into and acquisition was in port, but the intoxication did not last long.
– We thought we’d bought a property where we had got what we had paid for. There were no relevant issue for me and Anne buying out anything at the time. We had already dug deep into their pockets, but I protested against the seller and Private condominiums, but was told that this had to deal with, says Gelius.
NRK socialite says usufruct agreement for the condominium 2007 was never mentioned by either the seller, broker or residential property.
– While considering the property, set accordingly two close family members, an aunt and nephew who are neighbors condominium, down and draft a usufruct agreement that we never learned anything about before we bought, recalls Gelius.
Bad start
NRK socialite acknowledge that the mood of residential condominiums closet was influenced by what happened eight years ago.
– I think it’s bad that we should start a neighborhood with distrust cabinets and disagreement, he adds.
– documents describe well how we have had since we moved in.
Gelius underscores in part the explanation that he and his wife long tried to reach an amicable settlement with their new neighbors, Otterstad and Lohne, but that they eventually realized there was no way around it subpoena of the neighbors.
– We can not take any more of hostile neighborhood. The best thing for us is to separate out our share of the plot, so we can do what we want. That is why I take the strain of standing here today declares Gelius.
When the inflamed situation arose, he was in the middle of a four-year long engagement as USA- correspondent for NRK.
SITE VISIT: The two quarreling neighbors Jon Gelius and Fredrik Otterstad brought themselves members of the court back to the residence at Roa in Oslo for an inspection Tuesday afternoon, but would not comment further to the press than they had explained in court earlier in the day.
Photo: Frode Hansen , VG
But the neighbors managed to meet each other the first time in May 2012, shortly after Otterstad Lohne and had moved into residential condominium at Roa.
– I perceived this as a friendly and constructive meeting, where we talked about the property’s condition and of course the long-standing conflict and usufruct agreement. I did not come with proposals for amendments, but gave an account of my views on the usage limit should go.
– Reacted with wonder
Gelius alleges that he barely had been put on a plane back to the United States when he received an email from their new neighbors that he was sued.
He also felt what he perceived as undue pressure from neighbors attorney to conclude an agreement which meant that the old right of use from 1997 would continue to apply even when the new owners moved into the condominium.
– We reacted with amazement and wonder. Thought it was strange that the first letter from our new neighbors was written by a lawyer. Through this letter they did not want to have any dialogue with us. It felt very strange, noting Gelius.
The last thing he wanted was to usher in a neighbor relationship with legal proceedings.
– Violent load
– I experienced it as a tremendous burden. Had never been away in the judicial system. Was in the United States. Had no legal assistance. Felt enormous pressure. And I wanted to postpone the issue until we came home a year later, but met no understanding of Otterstad and Lohne, said Gelius, who argue that only about getting geared up an unfair bias to approximately 50/50 sharing.
– We just wanted to correct the injustice that we had lived with for many years, and get what we had paid for.
Gelius claims that he finds it annoying and bothersome to stand in court.
– I work in a kind of showcase, in many ways. Therefore, I made every effort in an attempt to stop this process. For I know how the media works. I realized how it would be. And so it was, he says, holding up a Dagbladet frontage as proof.
Got enough
When Otterstad, just as TV celebrity had already done, wanted to build on their half of the two-family house in 2013, reacted Gelius to protest and file a complaint against the approved application for the County, who did not protest to follow.
Gelius alleges that Otterstad and Lohne sent neighboring alerts about development for all neighbors, apart from its nearest neighbors in the condominium.
– We got no information, nor when they submitted building application for municipality. The neighbors are acting like they live in a detached house, while staying in a condominium.
DISCLAIMS Fredrik Otterstad lawyer, Irene Lund Eker, was in court Tuesday completely dismissive of Jon Gelius’ requirements.
Photo: Frode Hansen , VG
Finally got couple Gelius enough, he notes in court. They sat down at the kitchen table one evening.
– I told Anne that you know what, if we are to have a normal relationship with our neighbors, we have to acquire the land. Do as we please. I therefore contacted the landowner Ole Ruud. Both we and Otterstad received the same offer to redeem party plot, explains Jon Gelius.
Dismissing claims
Lawyer Irene Lund Eker, representing Otterstad and wife, rejects demands to Gelius completely.
For a scant 14 days ago wrote attorney Lund Eker following in an email to VG:
“My clients signed an agreement with Gelius in 2012 on sharing the site grounds that they relate to. Gelius has now submitted a claim for division of the plot that does not comply with this agreement. There is no reason to alter this agreement so Gelius now claims. Gelius’ demand for division of the land would otherwise result in parts of the garden that naturally belong to Otterstad part of two-family house, becomes part of Gelius their garden area. “
No comments:
Post a Comment