Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
This action involves two adjacent, prime oceanfront parcels. One is owned P and the other by D. P's property contains a luxurious residence, pool, and manicured grounds. D has 2.9 acres of undeveloped land whose only land access is by right of way over land owned by P. P purchased at foreclosure auction in 1991. The adjoining vacant property was also sold at foreclosure auction, and D outbid P for the parcel. P planned to build a home. P brought actions seeking determinations that D did not enjoy a right of way and that D's land was not buildable under zoning bylaws. The suits were eventually unsuccessful. After P filed a successful challenge to D's building permit, D embarked on a campaign of retaliation. Between August 1999, and July 2003, D dumped construction debris along the boundary line and even brought onto the boundary a 'gigantic, red, metal ocean container . . . used to ship freight.' As P added barriers to compensate, D 'moved the construction debris inexplicably' so that the materials continued to be prominently in view. D also placed the detached bed of a pick-up truck that at one point held a large truck tire, and an unusual 'wireframe or rack' from which hung a yellow detergent bottle and several plastic figures including a duck, a goose, and an owl. A judge ordered the rack removed in a contempt proceeding related to this suit. P built a section of fence and D responded by moving an office trailer used on a construction site,' and elevating it on cinder blocks 'so that the top windows loomed above the trellis fence.' D placed several portable toilets near the pool, so close that a person could not walk between the toilets and the fence. The toilets generated an offensive odor that wafted over the pool. D also placed a fifteen-foot white and yellow striped tent within a few feet of P's pool area, 'obliterating any view and light from that direction.' The city ordered removal of the tent. The judge found that D's intent was to 'annoy, harass or otherwise create an offensive, harmful condition.' D also invited 150 to 200 people from a local youth center to a beach party that D did not attend. D intended the outing to be a recurring event, but it was discontinued by the city because it was 'disturbing the peace.' D, who is a licensed commercial helicopter pilot, used his property as a heliport. He posted a sign near the fence which was some distance away from the takeoff and landing site, that read in bold red lettering, 'WARNING HELICOPTER OPERATIONS; AUTHORIZED ACCESS ONLY.' From operations, small debris was launched onto P's property striking children. D ceased landing on the plot by Court order but continued overflights to 'check the property.' P sued D. The court found that D had created an actionable nuisance and awarded $532K in damages and issued a broad injunction. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co