Gary Bowling and Mable Bowling v. Christopher Nicholson and Shelley Nicholson
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 52, 51 N.E.3d 439, 2016 WL 743473 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful activity may be enjoined as a private nuisance if it essentially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of another's life or property. For the purpose of a preliminary injunction, this loss of enjoyment constitutes irreparable harm, and compliance with administrative regulations is not a dispositive defense against a nuisance claim.
Facts:
- In 1995, Gary and Mable Bowling moved into their home in rural St. Paul, Indiana.
- In 2004, Christopher and Shelley Nicholson purchased adjacent property and built a house.
- In June 2010, the Nicholsons installed an outdoor wood boiler (OWB) to heat their home.
- The Bowlings alleged that the OWB frequently emitted plumes of thick, acrid smoke and noxious odors onto their property.
- The Bowlings claimed the emissions interfered with their ability to use their yard and forced them to keep windows and doors sealed.
- Mable Bowling, who has asthma, testified that the smoke aggravated her condition, causing recurrent bronchitis and other respiratory symptoms.
- The Bowlings made numerous complaints to law enforcement and environmental agencies about the OWB.
- Inspections by government agencies resulted in the finding of only one minor violation, which the Nicholsons acknowledged was an error.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 29, 2013, the Bowlings filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the Nicholsons in the trial court, alleging nuisance and other torts.
- On November 15, 2013, the Bowlings filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to stop the Nicholsons from using their OWB during the litigation.
- A hearing on the motion was held on October 14, 2014.
- On January 30, 2015, the trial court issued an order denying the Bowlings' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The Bowlings (appellants) appealed the trial court's denial to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the Nicholsons as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction by misapplying the legal standards for irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, balance of harms, and public interest in a private nuisance claim based on the loss of comfortable enjoyment of property?
Opinions:
Majority - Altice, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by misapplying all four factors of the preliminary injunction test. First, the trial court incorrectly defined irreparable harm as requiring physical damage or loss of property value, when in a nuisance claim, the loss of the comfortable use and enjoyment of one's property constitutes irreparable harm. Second, the court failed to properly assess the Bowlings' likelihood of success on their nuisance claim, improperly dismissing it because it was not a commercial dispute. Third, the court failed to properly balance the harms by not considering the Bowlings' loss of enjoyment against the Nicholsons' potential for higher heating costs. Finally, the court erroneously concluded that an injunction would disserve the public interest because the Nicholsons' OWB operation was largely compliant with regulations; the court clarified that a lawful activity can still constitute a nuisance per accidens based on its specific circumstances and impact.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that nuisance law protects against intangible harms, such as the loss of comfortable enjoyment of property, and that such harms are considered irreparable for the purpose of injunctive relief. It clarifies that a defendant's compliance with statutes or regulations is not a complete defense to a nuisance claim. The ruling provides a crucial clarification for trial courts, instructing them that an activity, while lawful, can become an enjoinable nuisance due to its specific impact on neighbors, thereby strengthening the legal position of individuals whose quality of life is severely impacted by otherwise legal land uses.
Unlock the full brief for Gary Bowling and Mable Bowling v. Christopher Nicholson and Shelley Nicholson