Schild v. Rubin
283 Cal. Rptr. 533, 232 Cal. App. 3d 755, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5789 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The normal, recreational activity of playing basketball in a residential backyard at reasonable times is a reasonable use of property that does not constitute unlawful harassment under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, as it is not conduct that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
Facts:
- Kenneth and Gail Schild and Michael and Yifat Rubin were next-door neighbors in Encino, separated by a six-foot-high wall.
- In December 1987, the Schilds installed a basketball hoop in their backyard, approximately 60 feet from the property line.
- Michael Rubin complained about the noise in January 1988, and in response, the Schilds modified the equipment to deaden the sound.
- The Schilds' children and guests played basketball 3-5 times per week for periods ranging from five to thirty minutes, only during reasonable daytime and evening hours.
- On March 9, 1989, following another noise complaint, Michael Rubin became enraged and sprayed the basketball court area with a garden hose while Jonathan Schild was playing.
- The Schilds alleged that on several occasions, the Rubins directed unusually loud rock music toward their residence.
- A second hose-spraying incident occurred on April 1, 1990.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 22, 1989, the Schilds filed a complaint in the trial court against Rubin for assault, battery, and other claims, seeking a permanent injunction.
- Rubin filed a cross-complaint against the Schilds for nuisance and other claims, also seeking a permanent injunction.
- On May 17, 1990, the trial court issued an injunction against the Rubins, prohibiting them from harassing the Schilds.
- On June 7, 1990, Rubin obtained a temporary restraining order against the Schilds under the willful harassment statute, C.C.P. § 527.6.
- On July 19, 1990, the trial court granted Rubin's application for a permanent injunction, ordering the Schilds to limit their basketball playing to specific hours.
- The Schilds (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of the permanent injunction against them to the Court of Appeal.
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 noise generated by children playing basketball in their residential backyard at reasonable hours constitute a "knowing and willful course of conduct" that serves no legitimate purpose and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, thereby qualifying as unlawful harassment under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6?
Opinions:
Majority - Boren, J.
No, the noise from children playing basketball in their residential backyard at reasonable hours does not constitute unlawful harassment under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6. To qualify as harassment, the conduct must, among other things, be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. The court found that while the Rubins were annoyed, there was insufficient evidence they suffered the requisite 'substantial emotional distress.' More importantly, the court held that the Schilds' conduct would not cause a 'reasonable person' to suffer substantial emotional distress. A reasonable person living in a suburban environment must expect and tolerate some level of inconvenience and annoyance from the reasonable use of property by neighbors. The Schilds' basketball playing occurred at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, constituting a legitimate recreational activity, not outrageous or extreme conduct justifying a harassment injunction.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for obtaining a harassment injunction under C.C.P. § 527.6, particularly in the context of disputes between neighbors. The court's emphasis on the objective 'reasonable person' standard prevents the statute from being used to litigate everyday annoyances or subjective sensitivities. It establishes that normal residential activities, conducted reasonably, serve a legitimate purpose and are not the type of conduct the anti-harassment statute was designed to prohibit. This decision protects the rights of property owners to engage in ordinary recreational activities and discourages the use of serious legal remedies for petty squabbles.
