Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.
212 Md. App. 451, 69 A.3d 512, 2013 WL 3233307 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For secondhand smoke to constitute a private nuisance, the intrusion must be a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of one's property, as judged by the sensibilities of an ordinary person. Mere annoyance, odor, or speculative health risks, without proof of significant harm or substantial interference, are insufficient to sustain a nuisance claim.
Facts:
- David S. Schuman and the Popovics were residents of Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), a housing cooperative, and lived in adjoining townhouses.
- In 1996, Schuman complained about the Popovics' cigarette smoke entering his home. GHI sealed cracks between the units, which temporarily resolved the issue.
- After renovations in his home in 2008, Schuman again smelled smoke and complained to GHI and the Popovics.
- GHI declined to ask the Popovics to stop smoking, stating that the cooperative was not a smoke-free community.
- In 2010, Mrs. Popovic became ill and quit smoking, and Mr. Popovic voluntarily stopped smoking inside their unit. He continued to smoke on their back patio for twenty minutes to an hour and a half each evening.
- The legal dispute centered on the smoke from Mr. Popovic's outdoor patio smoking drifting into Schuman's property.
- Schuman claimed symptoms like headaches and watery eyes but linked them to the earlier period of indoor smoking and provided no medical evidence of injury from the outdoor smoke.
- Other neighbors testified that they could prevent the smoke smell from entering their homes by simply closing their windows.
Procedural Posture:
- David Schuman filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (a trial court) against Greenbelt Homes, Inc. and the Popovics.
- The circuit court denied Schuman's request for a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction against outdoor smoking, but granted an injunction against indoor smoking based on Mr. Popovic's consent.
- Schuman appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction for outdoor smoking to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The case returned to the circuit court for a six-day bench trial on the merits of Schuman's remaining claims.
- The circuit court entered judgment against Schuman on all of his claims, including nuisance, trespass, negligence, and breach of contract.
- Schuman (appellant) appealed the circuit court's final judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
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 neighbor's outdoor smoking, which is permitted by a cooperative's rules and causes secondhand smoke to occasionally drift into an adjacent unit, constitute an actionable nuisance, breach of contract, or trespass when it does not cause proven physical harm or a substantial and unreasonable interference with the property owner's use and enjoyment?
Opinions:
Majority - Zarnoch, J.
No, a neighbor's outdoor smoking does not constitute an actionable nuisance, breach of contract, or trespass under these circumstances. To be a nuisance, an interference with property must be both substantial and unreasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Here, the smoke was not a nuisance per se, as smoking in private residences is not prohibited by state law and was permitted by the cooperative. The court found that the intrusion was not a nuisance in fact because the inconvenience to Schuman—having to close his windows for a short period in the evening—was not a substantial interference. Schuman failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual harm, as his medical complaints were linked to prior indoor smoking and expert testimony on future risks was speculative. Because the smoking was not a nuisance, the related claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment also fail. Finally, the trespass claim fails because smoke is an intangible intrusion that did not cause physical damage to Schuman's property.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high evidentiary bar for private nuisance claims based on secondhand smoke from a neighbor's property. The court's ruling makes clear that mere annoyance or the presence of an offensive odor is insufficient; a plaintiff must prove a 'substantial and unreasonable' interference with property rights, judged by an objective standard. The opinion shows judicial reluctance to expand common law nuisance to effectively ban a legal activity in private homes, deferring such policy decisions to legislatures or the rules of private housing associations. This case will likely make it more difficult for future plaintiffs to succeed in similar lawsuits without concrete evidence of significant, tangible harm or a more severe and unavoidable intrusion.
