Alexander v. McKnight
92 Daily Journal DAR 8827, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453, 7 Cal. App. 4th 973 (1992)
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover damages for the diminution in property value caused by a nuisance if the court simultaneously grants injunctive relief requiring the defendant to abate that nuisance, as this constitutes an impermissible double recovery.
Facts:
- The Alexanders and the McKnights lived in a subdivided residential area in San Diego governed by a declaration of restrictions (CC&Rs) designed to protect privacy and views.
- The McKnights operated a tree trimming business from their residence, which involved the use of a noisy tree chipper.
- The McKnights engaged in offensive behaviors including playing late-night basketball, parking an excessive number of cars on their property, and pouring motor oil on the roof of their house.
- Violating the neighborhood CC&Rs, the McKnights constructed a two-story cabana in their backyard and built a deck without a building permit.
- The McKnights recorded an invalid amendment to the neighborhood CC&Rs.
- The McKnights' conduct created a pattern of offensive and noxious activities that disturbed their neighbors.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the McKnights in the trial court seeking equitable relief and damages.
- The trial court found in favor of the Plaintiffs, determining the McKnights' conduct warranted relief.
- The trial court issued injunctions ordering the McKnights to correct violations, remove structures, and cease nuisance activities.
- The trial court awarded Plaintiffs $28,000 in damages, specifically designating $24,000 for the diminution in value of their homes due to required disclosures.
- The McKnights appealed the monetary portion of the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an award of damages for the diminution in market value of a property constitute an impermissible double recovery when the trial court has also issued an injunction ordering the defendant to abate the nuisance that caused the depreciation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener
Yes, awarding damages for lost property value alongside an order to abate the nuisance constitutes a double recovery. While the trial court correctly identified that the plaintiffs must legally disclose 'neighborhood noise problems' to future buyers—a fact that typically depresses property value—the legal presumption is that a party will comply with a court order. Under the precedent established in Spaulding v. Cameron, a plaintiff cannot recover for the depreciation of property value while simultaneously having the cause of that depreciation removed by the court. If the McKnights comply with the injunction to stop the noise and remove the illegal structures, the 'diminution in value' is theoretically resolved. Awarding money for the loss of value plus ordering the fix would unjustly enrich the plaintiffs. If the defendants fail to comply in the future, the plaintiffs may seek remedies through contempt proceedings or new litigation.
Analysis:
This decision addresses the intersection of real estate disclosure obligations and nuisance remedies. The court acknowledges that a 'bad neighbor' history acts as a stigma that must be disclosed under Civil Code section 1102.6, which inherently lowers market value. However, the court prioritizes the legal doctrine prohibiting double recovery over this market reality. By ruling that an injunction (abatement) legally substitutes for the financial loss of property value, the court establishes that plaintiffs must choose between—or essentially are limited to—fixing the problem or getting paid for the permanent damage, but not both. This prevents a scenario where a plaintiff gets paid for a 'ruined' property that the court has simultaneously ordered to be restored.
