Wernke v. Halas
1992 Ind. App. LEXIS 1443, 1992 WL 236380, 600 N.E.2d 117 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana law, a structure cannot be an actionable private nuisance based solely on its unsightly or offensive appearance. Furthermore, a fence that does not exceed six feet in height cannot be deemed a nuisance, regardless of its appearance or the owner's motive.
Facts:
- Roland Wernke and John and Karen Halas were next-door neighbors with abutting side yards.
- Following a period of neighborhood tension over property maintenance, Wernke built a privacy fence, no more than six feet tall, facing the Halas property.
- On the side of the fence facing the Halases, Wernke attached vinyl strips, a license plate, and a section of orange plastic construction fencing.
- Vandals scrawled offensive phrases into the wet concrete of a fence support post, which was located entirely on Wernke's property.
- After a neighbor first placed a toilet seat on a tree facing his yard, Wernke mounted a toilet seat and lid on a post overlooking his neighbors' land, with a brown spot painted within the seat's ring.
- All of the structures complained of—the fence, the graffiti, and the toilet seat—were located entirely on Wernke's property.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Karen Halas filed a private nuisance lawsuit against Roland Wernke in an Indiana trial court.
- The Halases filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Halases, finding as a matter of law that the fence, toilet, and graffiti constituted a nuisance.
- Following the summary judgment ruling, the trial court held a damages hearing and awarded the Halases compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
- Wernke (defendant-appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and the damage award to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, against the Halases (plaintiff-appellees).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a fence under six feet tall, an unsightly toilet seat mounted on a post, and offensive graffiti, all located entirely on a defendant's property, constitute an actionable private nuisance under Indiana law?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
No. The fence, toilet, and graffiti do not constitute an actionable private nuisance. The court reasoned that for each item, the Halases' complaint was based on aesthetics, which is not a legally sufficient basis for a private nuisance claim. For the fence, Indiana's 'spite fence' statute only applies to fences unnecessarily exceeding six feet in height; because Wernke's fence was under six feet, the common law rule applies, which permits fences of any appearance or motive as long as they do not encroach on neighboring property. For the toilet seat decoration, the court held that unsightliness alone does not constitute a private nuisance, as courts are not arbiters of aesthetics or good taste. Finally, the court found the graffiti to be a non-actionable trifle because it was small, barely visible, and caused mere annoyance rather than a substantial interference with the enjoyment of property.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that private nuisance law does not regulate aesthetics or matters of taste between neighbors. By strictly construing Indiana's spite fence statute, the court created a clear bright-line rule: fences six feet tall or less are per se legal, regardless of motive. The ruling solidifies the high bar for nuisance claims, requiring an essential interference with the comfortable enjoyment of property, not just subjective annoyance or offense. It directs parties with aesthetic grievances towards private agreements like restrictive covenants rather than public court remedies.
Unlock the full brief for Wernke v. Halas