Rattigan v. Wile
445 Mass. 850 (2006)
Rule of Law:
Activities on one’s property that create or maintain unreasonable aesthetic conditions for neighbors, especially when combined with other disturbances and a retaliatory intent, are actionable as a private nuisance.
Facts:
- John Rattigan and Jeffrey Horvitz owned 'Edgewater,' a luxurious oceanfront residence with manicured grounds in Beverly Farms, adjacent to an undeveloped oceanfront parcel.
- Evan Wile purchased the adjacent undeveloped parcel in 1992, outbidding Horvitz, with plans to build a home.
- Rattigan and Horvitz successfully challenged Wile's building permit, which Wile considered 'harassment.'
- Between August 1999 and July 2003, Wile embarked on a campaign of retaliation by placing construction debris, a 'gigantic, red, metal ocean container,' a detached pickup truck bed, and a wire frame with plastic figures along the boundary line with Edgewater, deliberately keeping them visible.
- Wile also placed portable toilets near Edgewater's pool, generating offensive odors, and a fifteen-foot tent that blocked views and light.
- On occasions in 2001 and 2002, Wile invited 150-200 people to beach parties on his property, which the judge found was intended to create a 'difficult and destructive neighborhood.'
- Between 1999 and 2002, Wile, a licensed commercial helicopter pilot, used his property as a heliport, causing helicopter blades to propel debris onto Edgewater, striking Horvitz’s stepson and youngest daughter on separate occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- Rattigan, as trustee for the Edgewater House Trust, brought actions in Land Court around 1992 seeking determinations that Wile did not enjoy a right of way through Edgewater and that Wile's land was not buildable under Beverly zoning bylaws, which were ultimately unsuccessful.
- Rattigan and Horvitz filed a successful challenge to Wile’s building permit.
- Plaintiffs John Rattigan and Jeffrey Horvitz filed this action in Superior Court on February 14, 2001.
- In July 2001, following a hearing, the Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Wile from, among other things, flying his helicopter near Edgewater and committing acts intended to harass Horvitz, his family, employees, or guests.
- Prior to trial, Wile was twice adjudged to be in contempt of the preliminary injunction with respect to certain objects he had placed along the property line.
- On July 29, 2003, after a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge found that Wile had created an actionable nuisance, awarded damages of $390,000 for diminished rental value and $19,200 for abatement costs, and issued a broad injunction.
- Wile appealed the Superior Court judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can activities on one's property that create or maintain unreasonable aesthetic conditions for neighbors, particularly when undertaken with a retaliatory or harassing intent and combined with other annoyances, constitute an actionable private nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
Yes, activities on one's property that create or maintain unreasonable aesthetic conditions for neighbors, particularly when undertaken with a retaliatory or harassing intent and combined with other annoyances, can constitute an actionable private nuisance. The court affirmed that activities creating "unreasonable aesthetic conditions for neighbors" can be actionable as a private nuisance, recognizing a broad right to use and enjoy land that includes protection from "offensive sights, sounds or smells." While recognizing that the law of nuisance does not concern itself with trifles, the court emphasized that an intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the "gravity of the harm" outweighs the "utility" of the actor’s conduct. The judge found Wile’s actions were intended to harass and were retaliatory, having no utility when the 'sole purpose' is to annoy and harm a neighbor. Additionally, Wile could have accomplished his goals elsewhere on his expansive property without undue hardship. The court noted that the modern trend and prior Massachusetts precedent (General Outdoor Advertising Co.) support that aesthetic considerations can legitimately generate private concern. The court concluded that the "composite of unpleasant odors, sounds, and visual conditions," coupled with expert testimony of diminished rental value and the continuous, retaliatory nature of the interference over several years in a residential community, constituted an actionable nuisance. The court upheld damages for diminished rental value and abatement costs but adjusted the calculation period, reducing the award from 65 weeks to 53 weeks. The injunction was modified to be less subjective and avoid chilling legitimate property uses while still preventing unreasonable interference.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of private nuisance law in Massachusetts by explicitly recognizing that aesthetic conditions, particularly when maliciously created or maintained, can form the basis of a claim. It clarifies that a "composite" of disturbances—including sights, sounds, and smells—can collectively amount to a substantial and unreasonable interference, even if each element alone might not suffice. The decision provides a stronger legal recourse for property owners against neighbors who engage in retaliatory or purely malicious acts that diminish the value and enjoyment of their land, emphasizing the importance of intent and the utility of the defendant's conduct.
