Trickett v. Ochs

838 A.2d 66 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps purchased their home from Ds in 1992. The residence was the homestead for an apple orchard and was directly across the road from the barn that served as the main collecting point for the apples. Ds continued to operate the apple orchard after the sale of the farmhouse. During the mid-1990s, Ds expanded their operation in response to changes in market demands. They began waxing their apples and storing them on-site in refrigerated tractor-trailer trucks. Tractor trailer trucks also came to the barn to take apples to market. During the winter months, these trucks began arriving in the predawn hours and continued throughout the day. Additional noise and light glare entered the home and disturbed Ps. Ps complained to various town and state officials. The Orwell board of adjustment denied the appeal without explanation. The zoning administrator ruled that nothing had changed since 1997 and that Ds continued to be in compliance with the Orwell zoning ordinance. On appeal, the board of adjustment stated that it would no longer hear complaints regarding defendants' orchard that had already been decided by any state agency. Ps eventually brought this action in November 2000, alleging that (1) the noise from Ds' operations interfered with the use and enjoyment of Ps' property; (2) Ds had allowed pesticides and polluted surface water from their operations to flow onto Ps' property; (3) the trucks and Ds' dogs had trespassed on Ps' property; and (4) Ds had shouted obscenities at Ps and assaulted them. Ps sought an injunction and compensatory and punitive damages. Ds answered and moved to dismiss on the ground that the right-to-farm law immunized their activities from a nuisance action. Ds asserted that collateral estoppel barred the action, arguing that the findings of the zoning administrator and board of adjustment had preclusive effect as to whether the apple orchard was a 'protected agricultural activity.' Following the hearing, the court concluded that (1) the right-to-farm law barred Ps' nuisance claims because Ps moved to the site of a known, pre-existing farming operation; and (2) Ps' claims were also barred by the prior findings and conclusions of the department of agriculture and the Town of Orwell regarding Ds' orchard operations. Ps appealed.