Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
29 N.J. 438, 149 A.2d 599 (1959)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The use of one's property may be enjoined as a private nuisance if it creates an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of a neighbor's land, determined by balancing the utility of the conduct against the quantum of harm to the plaintiff.

Facts:

In the 1940s, a developer created a combination residential community and country club, conveying the recreational facilities, including a golf course, to defendant Ramsey Golf and Country Club, Inc.
Plaintiffs Sans purchased a lot in the development in 1949 and became club members. The sales materials and filed maps shown to them did not depict a golf tee on their side of Mirror Lake.
In 1948 and 1949, before the Sans built their home, the club built men's and women's third tees on a strip of land behind what would become the Sans' property.
The Sans built their home and moved in during 1951.
Over time, as club membership and play increased, the Sans experienced constant noise, loss of privacy, errant golf balls on their lawn, and confrontations with golfers who walked on a path directly behind their house.
The Sans' children were unable to play freely in their yard due to danger from golf balls and constant admonitions from golfers to be quiet.
On one occasion, a golfer trespassed onto the Sans' property and struck their dog unconscious with a golf club.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs Sans sued defendant Ramsey Golf and Country Club, Inc., in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court (trial court).
The trial court found for the plaintiffs, concluding a private nuisance existed, and issued an injunction barring further use of the men's and women's third tees.
The defendant, Ramsey Golf and Country Club, Inc., as appellant, appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to review the case.

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 the location and use of a golf course's third tee, which is in close proximity to a private residence within the same planned development, constitute an unreasonable interference with the homeowners' use and enjoyment of their land, thereby creating a private nuisance?

Opinions:

Majority - Ekaucis, J.

Yes, the location and use of the third tees constitute a private nuisance. An owner's use of land becomes an unreasonable interference with a neighbor's enjoyment of their property when, after balancing the conflicting interests, the harm to the neighbor outweighs the utility of the owner's conduct. Here, the development's primary purpose was residential, with the golf course intended as a subordinate amenity to enhance home life. The constant noise from early morning until dusk, loss of privacy, and real danger to the plaintiffs and their children from errant golf balls created a substantial and unreasonable interference with their ability to enjoy their home. This harm is not outweighed by the club's desire to maintain a specific type of water hole, especially when relocating the tees is a feasible and simple remedy that would not materially impair the course as a whole.

Analysis:

This case illustrates the application of nuisance law within the specific context of a planned residential-recreational community. It establishes that the original purpose and marketing of such a development can create equitable considerations that favor homeowners over the operators of the community's amenities. The court's decision signals that a 'coming to the nuisance' defense is weakened when the nature of the interference was not apparent at the time of purchase and intensifies over time. The ruling emphasizes a flexible, fact-sensitive balancing test, demonstrating that even lawful and expected activities like golf can be enjoined if their specific implementation unreasonably destroys a neighbor's peace and enjoyment of their property, particularly when a practical solution is available.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc. (1959)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"