Lesh v. Chandler
2011 WL 795854, 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 394, 944 N.E.2d 942 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intentional and unreasonable direction of noise or light onto a neighbor's property that interferes with their comfortable enjoyment of life and property constitutes an actionable private nuisance. Damages for such a nuisance may be awarded for personal inconvenience and discomfort, even without evidence of a diminution in property value.
Facts:
- Mark Lesh and Richard and Marilyn Chandler lived on opposite sides of the Little Elkhart River.
- Around May 2000, construction noise from the Chandlers’ residence allegedly disturbed Lesh.
- Beginning around 2003, Lesh directed loud music and light from a floodlight on his property toward the Chandlers' property.
- Lesh also made derogatory comments toward the Chandlers.
- The constant noise and light caused the Chandlers to suffer headaches, forced them to install heavy curtains, and prevented them from comfortably enjoying their property or entertaining guests.
- Multiple neighbors and police officers testified that the music coming from Lesh's property was unreasonably loud.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 26, 2006, Marilyn Chandler obtained a protective order against Lesh.
- On May 23, 2006, the Chandlers (plaintiffs) sued Lesh (defendant) for nuisance in the LaGrange Circuit Court (trial court).
- In September 2006, the trial court granted the Chandlers a preliminary injunction against Lesh.
- Lesh (appellant) appealed the preliminary injunction, and the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed and remanded for the trial court to make additional findings.
- On August 25, 2007, the trial court entered the required findings and re-issued the preliminary injunction.
- On April 25, 2008, the Chandlers filed a petition to hold Lesh in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction.
- Following a bench trial in October 2009, the trial court issued a final order on February 25, 2010, finding Lesh liable for nuisance, issuing a permanent injunction, finding him in contempt, and awarding damages to the Chandlers.
- Lesh (appellant) appealed the trial court's final judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals (this court), with the Chandlers 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:
Does a person's intentional direction of loud music and bright lights onto a neighbor's property, which interferes with the neighbor's comfortable enjoyment of their property, constitute an actionable private nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - May, J.
Yes, a person's actions of directing loud music and bright lights onto a neighbor's property can constitute an actionable private nuisance. Indiana law defines a nuisance as anything offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property that essentially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. The court found that the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the Chandlers, their neighbors, and police officers, which established that Lesh's music was unreasonably loud and his floodlight was directed at the Chandlers' home. These actions were offensive to the senses and interfered with the Chandlers' use and enjoyment of their property, causing them headaches and discomfort, thus meeting the legal definition of a private nuisance.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional common law doctrine of private nuisance by applying it to intangible intrusions like excessive noise and light. The court's decision clarifies that the central element of a nuisance claim is the unreasonableness of the interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their land, which is a question of fact. Furthermore, the opinion is significant for affirming that damages in a nuisance action are not limited to the depreciation of property value. This allows plaintiffs to be compensated for personal discomfort, annoyance, and inconvenience, broadening the scope of recovery for harms that are difficult to quantify financially.
Unlock the full brief for Lesh v. Chandler