Echard v. Kraft
858 A.2d 1018, 159 Md.App. 110, 2004 Md. App. LEXIS 154 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For acts to constitute a common law private nuisance, they must be a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land that is both substantial and unreasonable, and of such a character as to materially diminish the value of the property as a dwelling AND seriously interfere with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of it, requiring continuousness or recurrence of the offending acts.
Facts:
- William Echard and his mother lived next door to Richard and Karen Kraft in Annapolis for many years.
- In March 2001, the Krafts decided to build a fence along their common property line, which greatly angered Echard and his mother because they believed it would interfere with Mrs. Echard's driveway use.
- On March 5, 2001, after learning of the fence plans, Echard called Richard Kraft to his house, where Echard insulted him with curse words and warned, 'You’d better not build that fence.'
- During the spring of 2001, while the fence was under construction, Echard trespassed onto the Krafts' property to speak to workmen, ignored Mrs. Kraft's requests to leave, and continued to talk to the workmen before eventually departing.
- On separate, unspecified occasions, Echard yelled at the Krafts' housekeeper for emptying a dust sack near his property, gave Richard Kraft 'a very emphatic finger' in response to a friendly wave, and shouted challenges like 'Come down here, come down here' at Richard Kraft from his own yard, both at midnight and during the day.
- Mr. and Mrs. Kraft testified that Echard’s actions caused them significant emotional and financial stress, made them reluctant to go outside, and made them avoid using their yard when Echard was expected to be around.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Katherine Echard (Echard's mother) initiated legal action on March 5, 2001, to have the city revoke the Krafts' fence permit, but this action was unsuccessful.
- On February 26, 2002, William Echard sued Richard and Karen Kraft in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, alleging defamation.
- The Krafts filed a counterclaim against Echard, alleging, among other things, that Echard had interfered with the peaceful possession of their property (a common law nuisance claim).
- The matter proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the conclusion of the case, Echard moved for judgment on the nuisance count, arguing the Krafts failed to prove a nuisance, but the trial judge denied his motion.
- The jury returned a verdict against Echard on his defamation claim and in favor of the Krafts on their nuisance counterclaim, awarding the Krafts $25,000 in damages.
- Echard filed an unsuccessful motion for a new trial.
- Echard then filed a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a neighbor's isolated acts of rude behavior, verbal insults, and non-physical threats, either individually or collectively, constitute a common law private nuisance under Maryland law?
Opinions:
Majority - Salmon, Judge
No, Echard’s unneighborly acts, either individually or collectively, did not constitute a common law private nuisance under Maryland law. The court held that a private nuisance requires a nontrespassory invasion that is both substantial and unreasonable, and which materially diminishes the value of the property as a dwelling AND seriously interferes with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of it. This standard demands continuousness or recurrence of the acts and causes 'significant harm' of a kind that would be suffered by a normal person. The court examined each of Echard's six complained-of incidents: the verbal insults in Echard's home did not interfere with the Krafts' property use or diminish its value; the trespass incident, while potentially another tort, was by definition not a 'nontrespassory' nuisance; yelling at the housekeeper did not materially diminish property value or seriously interfere with enjoyment; and giving 'the finger' was a trifle the law does not concern itself with. The two shouting incidents, while annoying, were isolated and not the 'constant harassing activity' required for a nuisance, unlike the loud, blaring radio noise found in Gorman v. Sabo. The court rejected the collective approach to the actions, noting that some acts, like 'the finger,' would never constitute a nuisance even if repeated. The Krafts' testimony about stress and avoiding their yard, while indicating discomfort, failed to prove the necessary elements that the value of their property was diminished or that there was a serious interference with its ordinary comfort and enjoyment, as their avoidance was a choice and did not physically prevent them from using their property.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for establishing a private nuisance claim, especially in neighbor disputes involving personal animosity rather than physical or environmental invasions. It emphasizes that a private nuisance requires more than just rude, annoying, or even threatening behavior; it must involve a nontrespassory invasion that both materially diminishes property value and seriously interferes with enjoyment, and must be continuous or recurrent. This ruling serves as a precedent to prevent an 'avalanche of frivolous litigation' over mere 'trifles' or isolated acts of incivility between neighbors, reaffirming the legal system's focus on tangible and substantial harm to property rights rather than personal offenses.
