Imhoff, A. v. Deemer, G.
303 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- The Imhoffs and Deemers are neighboring landowners on agriculturally zoned lots; the Deemers built a barn (2000), garage/addition, and in 2013 constructed a 70'×100' indoor riding arena at the site of a prior outdoor arena.
- After excavation for the arena, heavy rain on August 28, 2013 caused water, soil, silt, and debris to flow onto the Imhoffs’ property and clog their culvert; the Deemers later installed a silt fence and drainage measures.
- The Imhoffs sued alleging private nuisance and violations of Hempfield Township Zoning Ordinance § 87-56 (150-foot setback for intensively used animal-raising structures), seeking removal of the barn, arena, and a dog enclosure.
- The non-jury trial court found for the Deemers, concluding the Imhoffs failed to prove the 150-foot setback violation and failed to show the Deemers unreasonably altered drainage to create a private nuisance; the court ordered the silt fence maintained.
- The Superior Court reviewed de novo legal questions and for competent-evidence factual review, and affirmed the trial court judgment on both ordinance interpretation and nuisance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Imhoff) | Defendant's Argument (Deemer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deemers’ barn, riding arena, and doghouse are “structures for animal raising and care” subject to 150-foot setback under ordinance | Structures (barn/arena/doghouse) qualify as "structures for animal-raising and care," so 150-foot setback applies and buildings must be removed | Buildings do not meet the ordinance definition as intensively used animal-raising structures; Imhoffs failed to prove distances and some claims were waived | Judgment: Imhoffs failed to prove ordinance violation; court found arena/barn setbacks satisfied (Imhoffs presented no measurements) and some claims waived |
| Whether excavation/grading and resulting runoff constituted a private nuisance (unreasonable alteration of natural drainage) | Expert survey and LiDAR show swale removal and grading that pushes water toward Imhoffs, causing silt, dirt, and manure to flow onto lower property—constitutes unreasonable interference | Deemers presented testimony and drainage analysis showing no net increase in flow toward Imhoffs, drainage structures divert water away, and the August 2013 event was an isolated heavy storm; upper-landowner may make reasonable use of land | Held: No private nuisance. Trial court’s factual findings supported by competent evidence; Deemers’ changes not shown to have unreasonably diverted or increased natural flow |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 801 A.2d 492 (Pa. 2002) (ordinance interpretation aims to ascertain legislative intent and plain language controls when unambiguous)
- Youst v. Keck’s Food Serv., Inc., 94 A.3d 1057 (Pa. Super. 2014) (restate principles on surface water rights and when upper-landowner liability attaches)
- Chamberlin v. Ciaffoni, 96 A.2d 140 (Pa. 1953) (upper landowner has easement to discharge natural waters onto lower land)
- Pfeiffer v. Brown, 30 A. 844 (Pa. 1895) (upper landowner liable if he alters natural conditions to concentrate or increase water flow)
- Lucas v. Ford, 69 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1949) (liability only where water is diverted from natural channel or unreasonably changed in quantity/quality)
- Stephan v. Waldron Elec. Heating & Cooling LLC, 100 A.3d 660 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards of appellate review for non-jury trials; conclusions of law reviewed plenarily)