Nuisance

The neighbors in the case of Game Place, Tranfield v. Arcuni-English, 215 A.3d 222 (Me. 2019), never got along with each other and quarreled when one owner cut dead limbs on his property to open up a view over the neighbor’s land. The neighbor threatened to erect a high fence to block the view, but instead hired a landscaper who installed 24 trees along the boundary line that were eight to twelve feet tall. The court interpreted a Maine statute that provides that “Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height, maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property, shall be deemed a private nuisance.” Me. Rev. Stat. §2801, and found the plantings to constitute a spite fence since they were more dense than needed to provide privacy and would not have been planted …

Trees planted along border held to constitute a spite fence Read More »

In a somewhat surprising but ultimately understandable case, the Montana Supreme Court held that bird feeding could constitute a nuisance that causes substantial and unreasonable harm to a neighboring owner. Simpkins v. Speck, 443 P.3d 428 (Mont. 2019). In this case, the defendant planted trees and shrubs designed to attract birds and hung multiple bird feeders and also seeded the ground. The birds often congregated on a power line running along the boundary with the plaintiff’s land as well as trees on plaintiff’s property. “Plaintiffs regularly found bird excrement on their property and on vehicles parked in their driveway, endured bird calls from dawn to dusk, and discovered feathers, dismembered birds, and bird carcasses in their yard.” While defendant tried to avoid or mitigate the harm by putting the bird feeders in the center of her land, this was not sufficient to avoid the harms. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the trial …

Bird feeding can be a nuisance Read More »

The North Carolina Farm Act of 2018(Senate Bill 711), requires nuisance claims to be brought within a year of the establishment of a farm use or a “fundamental change” in the farm’s operation. N.C. Gen. Stat. §106-701 to –702. It denies punitive damages unless the farm operator has a criminal conviction or has received a regulatory notice that it violated state farm laws. Anne Blythe, Hog farmers win new protections as lawmakers override Roy Cooper’s veto,News&Observer, June 27, 2018.

In accord with both the traditional and the modern approach to conflict of laws, a federal court held that the law of the place where the property is situated (and where the harm is felt) applies even when the conduct took place in another state. Nnadili v. Chevron USA, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.D.C. 2006). A gas station owner in Maryland allegedly allowed gasoline to be released from its underground storage tanks which polluted neighboring land in the District of Columbia. The place of injury or the situs of the property are the laws that traditionally apply in this situation whether they help the plaintiff (the landowner) or not. That is likely still true even if the place of conduct finds it to be wrongful since a nuisance only occurs when the land owner suffers substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. In addition, the court …

Place of the injury law applies when conduct in one state causes a nuisance to property in another state Read More »

Construing a state statute, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that a shooting range cannot constitute a nuisance if it complies with local noise ordinances. However, that statute could not be applied retroactively without violating vested property rights so the plaintiffs in the case were entitled to damages but not injunctive relief. Goldstein v. Peacemaker Props., LLC, 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 102 (W.Va. 2019).