Town of Surfside v. CTY. LINE LAND CO.
340 So. 2d 1287 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An activity that physically interferes with the use and enjoyment of another's property constitutes a nuisance. A private party has standing to sue to enjoin a public nuisance if they can demonstrate a special injury, such as direct interference with their property's value and enjoyment, distinct from the harm suffered by the general public.
Facts:
- County Line Land Company (County Line) owned real property adjacent to a dump operated by the Town of Surfside (Surfside).
- County Line acquired the property to develop low-cost FHA housing and constructed over 300 housing units in 1972-1973.
- In 1974, County Line prepared to build approximately 300 additional homes on the property.
- The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) determined that the proposed new housing development was ineligible for mortgage insurance due to its close proximity to the Surfside dump.
- The dump emitted foul and noxious odors, was infested with vermin, and was unsightly.
- Expert testimony confirmed that large areas of the dump site were inadequately covered, leading to obnoxious odors, fires, flies, vermin, and contaminated water runoff.
- Surfside's dump was accepting refuse from outside its own municipal boundaries.
Procedural Posture:
- County Line Land Company filed a complaint against the Town of Surfside in the trial court, alleging the town's dump constituted a public and private nuisance.
- The complaint sought a permanent injunction and money damages.
- The trial court severed the claim for injunctive relief from the claim for damages.
- Following a final hearing on the injunction, the trial court found the dump was an 'obnoxious situation' and entered a restraining order.
- The order enjoined Surfside from accepting refuse from outside its own boundaries and required it to comply with environmental regulations by a certain date or face a full injunction.
- The Town of Surfside, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District; County Line Land Company is the appellee.
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 municipal dump that emits foul odors, attracts vermin, and is aesthetically displeasing, thereby interfering with the use, enjoyment, and value of adjacent residential property, constitute an enjoinable nuisance for which a private landowner has standing to sue?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A municipal dump that creates obnoxious conditions interfering with the use and enjoyment of neighboring property is an enjoinable nuisance. The court affirmed that anything which annoys or disturbs one in the free use or possession of their property, or renders its use physically uncomfortable, may become a nuisance. The evidence, including expert and resident testimony about foul odors, vermin, and contamination, was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the dump constituted an 'obnoxious situation' directly affecting the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, County Line had standing to bring the suit because the interference with the enjoyment and value of its private property rights constituted a special injury. The FHA's refusal to insure mortgages due to the dump was a direct and peculiar injury not suffered by the general public. The court also rejected Surfside's argument that County Line failed to exhaust administrative remedies, clarifying that this suit was based on the common law right to abate a nuisance, not an action to enforce a specific environmental statute.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the viability of common law nuisance actions as a tool for private landowners to protect their property interests, even in the context of extensive environmental regulations. It establishes that a private party need not exhaust administrative remedies under state pollution control statutes to bring a traditional nuisance claim. The decision provides a clear example of what constitutes a 'special injury' sufficient for standing in a public nuisance case, holding that direct, demonstrable economic harm and interference with property use—such as the denial of FHA mortgage insurance—is sufficient. This empowers property owners to seek relief against nuisances created by both private and municipal entities, independent of government enforcement actions.
