346 S.W.3d 343
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Burgs own Tract 9 and hold a perpetual, non-exclusive roadway and utility easement over Tract 10 for ingress/egress to Tract 1 and Tract 9, created by the Developers’ deeds.
- The 50-foot easement across Tract 10 was expressly described in the Deed and barred cross-fencing or obstructions; the grant contemplates maintenance contributions and potential termination if public road dedication occurs.
- Dampier acquired Tract 10 (subject to easements) and Graham lives on Tract 10 under a contract for deed; both opposed the Burgs’ use and maintained obstacles in the easement area.
- From 2002–2007 Burgs maintained the full 50-foot easement; disputes with Graham escalated over mowing, debris placement, and encroachments including a fence and waterers.
- In 2008–2009, Dampier and Graham pursued litigation and pushed a Trespass Notice against Tract 1, harming Burgs’ access; Burgs filed suit in 2008 and amended pleadings in 2009 seeking ejectment, nuisance relief, and related claims.
- Trial court (2010) entered a judgment ejecting Dampier and Graham from the easement area, finding a private nuisance, awarding $5,000, and invalidating the Trespass Notice; counterclaims were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injunction restricting nuisance interferes with servient owner rights | Burgs argue injunction aligns with grant terms and preserves access. | Dampier/Graham claim injunction improperly narrows their rights under the deed. | Injunction approved; does not unreasonably curtail rights. |
| Whether injunction is too vague or overbroad | Injunction provides workable standards tied to ‘substantially interfere’ | Language is vague about prohibited conduct. | Injunction not overbroad; court may modify if needed. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence of nuisance and damages | Obstructions and interference constituted nuisance; damages appropriate. | Evidence insufficient for nuisance or amount of $5,000. | Substantial evidence supports nuisance; $5,000 damages affirmed (within discretion). |
| Whether nuisance was based on Appellants’ use of their property or instruments | Nuisance arises from obstructive acts and maintenance in easement. | Nuisance requires erosion of dominants’ rights by servient owner’s acts. | Nuisance established; acts attributable to Dampier and Graham. |
| Whether joint and several damages liability against Dampier was proper | Dampier participated in interference and harassment; joint liability justified. | Liability should be allocated; Dampier not personally liable for all acts. | Joint and several liability affirmed; evidence supports attribution to Dampier. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beiser v. Hensic, 655 S.W.2d 660 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (roadway easement allows ingress/egress over servient estate)
- Schluemer v. Elrod, 916 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (dominant/servient rights; injunctive relief scales with grant terms)
- Bedard v. Scherrer, 221 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (when easement terms are written, grant terms prevail; limits on use)
- DiPasco v. Prosser, 364 Mo. 1193 (1954) (reasonableness of easement use when terms are silent)
- Tsevis v. J & F Indus., Inc., 51 S.W.3d 91 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (easement use in the absence of explicit restrictions)
- Maasen v. Shaw, 133 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (non-exclusive easement use by servient owner; substantial interference standard)
- Bartlett v. Hume-Sinclair Coal Mining Co., 351 S.W.2d 214 (Mo. App. 1961) (measure of damages for nuisance; permanent vs temporary injury)
- Clark v. City of Springfield, 241 S.W.2d 100 (Mo. App. 1951) (special damages and inconvenience as part of nuisance penalties)
- Hutchison v. Cannon, 29 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (standard for reviewing damages in nuisance cases)
- Mondelli v. Saline Sewer Co., 628 S.W.2d 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982) (per se nuisance from interference with easement)
- Simpkins v. Ryder Freight System, Inc., 855 S.W.2d 416 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (nominal damages concept in nuisance)
- Frick v. Kansas City, 93 S.W. 351 (Mo. App. 1906) (special damages recoverable for nuisance)
- Hawkins v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 514 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1974) (general damages framework in nuisance cases)
- Edmunds v. Sigma Chapter of Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (court may modify injunction to clarify scope)
- Baum v. Glen Park Properties, 660 S.W.2d 723 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (easement width disputes; court may adjust reasonable use)
- Baum v. Glen Park Properties, 692 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985) (Baum II; designation of roadway portion for use)
- Bedard v. Scherrer, 221 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (express grant terms prevail; restricts servient owner’s actions)