Charles Stinson v. David E. Mensel
M2016-00624-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Charles and Glenda Stinson own the servient tract subject to a 50-foot non-exclusive easement (Captain Spence Ridge Road) giving neighboring landowners (Mensels, Sabols) ingress/egress; the Stinsons did not join the driveway maintenance agreement used by other owners.
- Dispute began after a 2008 chicken incident; the Stinsons repeatedly placed debris, fence posts, brush, and dug a ditch across the road, obstructing and damaging the driveway and causing drainage/erosion issues.
- Multiple heated confrontations occurred (shouting, threats, rock-waving, Mrs. Stinson blocking a bulldozer), repeated police calls, and reciprocal allegations of harassment; the Mensels and Sabols hired a contractor to grade the easement.
- The Stinsons sued the neighbors claiming unlawful grading/encroachment and intimidation; the neighbors counter-claimed alleging the Stinsons harassed them and interfered with their easement use.
- Trial court (bench) found the Stinsons liable for nuisance, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and entered a permanent injunction barring the Stinsons from using any part of the 50-foot easement; the Stinsons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stinsons) | Defendant's Argument (Mensel/Sabol) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nuisance — Did Stinsons unreasonably interfere with easement use? | Stinsons denied materially interfering; alleged defendants were hypersensitive. | Mensels/Sabols argued Stinsons created drainage problems, obstructions, and harassment that disturbed use. | Affirmed: Court found substantial evidence of nuisance from debris, ditch, brush, erosion, and obstruction. |
| Invasion of privacy — Did Stinsons intrude on plaintiffs’ solitude/seclusion? | Stinsons contended actions were not intrusions into seclusion or private affairs. | Mensels/Sabols pointed to offensive notes, yelling at yards, blocking work, and following with rock. | Reversed: Court held no reasonable expectation of solitude on a shared easement; conduct did not meet §652B intrusion standard. |
| IIED — Did Stinsons’ conduct cause severe emotional injury? | Stinsons argued defendants failed to prove serious mental injury required for IIED. | Mensels/Sabols asserted prolonged harassment caused fear and altered behavior (avoidance). | Reversed: Court found intentional/outrageous conduct but insufficient evidence of serious mental injury under Rogers factors. |
| Permanent injunction scope — May court bar Stinsons from accessing their servient property? | Stinsons argued injunction impermissibly divested them of lawful use of their land. | Mensels/Sabols sought broad prohibition to prevent future interference/harassment. | Partially vacated: Injunction enforcing prohibition on damaging/interfering with easement upheld, but cannot bar Stinsons from lawful access/use of their servient property; overbroad portions vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cellco Partnership v. Shelby County, 172 S.W.3d 574 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (describing easement classes and appurtenant easement principles)
- Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (defining easement rights and servient/dominant estate relationship)
- Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2012) (elements and required proof for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Roberts v. Essex Microtel Assocs., 46 S.W.3d 205 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (discussion of Restatement §652B intrusion principle for invasion of privacy)
- Cooper v. Polos, 898 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (servient estate owner may not alter property to materially interfere with easement enjoyment)