944 N.E.2d 942
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lesh and the Chandlers live on opposite sides of the Little Elkhart River and disputes began over noise and lighting from Lesh’s property around 2000.
- Chandlers obtained a protective order against Lesh in 2006; nuisance action followed with preliminary injunction proceedings in 2006–2007.
- A 2007 preliminary injunction found against Lesh and this was appealed and remanded for more findings; a final order in 2010 issued a permanent injunction and extended the protective order for two years.
- The final order also held Lesh in contempt of the 2007 preliminary injunction and awarded damages of $950 and attorney’s fees of $2,500 to the Chandlers.
- Lesh appeals, challenging multiple findings, the final judgment, the extension of the protective order, the breadth of the injunction, contempt, and damages.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirms in part, reverses in part (notably the protective order extension), and remands for redaction of references to the now-defunct protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the findings support the judgment? | Lesh contends many findings lack evidence or are improperly derived. | Chandlers argue sufficient evidence supports the challenged findings. | Yes; the findings are supported by substantial evidence. |
| Is the judgment in favor of the Chandlers proper as a nuisance judgment? | Lesh argues volume and lighting conclusions are unsupported or speculative. | Chandlers maintain evidence shows unreasonable light/music interference and enjoyment of property was diminished. | Yes; findings support a private nuisance judgment. |
| Was extending the protective order improper? | Lesh argues the protective order should not have been extended after dismissal with prejudice. | Chandlers contend extension was proper under prior proceedings. | Yes; extension was improper; remand to remove references to the protective order. |
| Is the permanent injunction overbroad? | Lesh argues the injunction targets more than what was proven a nuisance. | Chandlers contend the injunction is narrowly tailored to enjoin proven nuisance activities. | No; the injunction is not overbroad given the proven nuisance. |
| Were contempt and damages properly found and awarded? | Lesh asserts due process issues and evidentiary problems with contempt and damages. | Chandlers argue sufficient evidence supported contempt and damages within nuisance principles. | Yes; contempt and damages findings are affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garling v. Ind. Dept. of Natural Res., 766 N.E.2d 409 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (two-tier review: assess evidence for findings and findings for judgment)
- McCarty v. Walsko, 857 N.E.2d 439 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (clear error standard when findings favor burdened party; substantial evidence required)
- Lain v. Lain, 134 Ind.App. 557, 189 N.E.2d 838 (Ind.Ct.App. 1963) (immaterial findings without prejudice can be deemed harmless)
- Rust v. Guinn, 429 N.E.2d 299 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981) (damages in nuisance include loss of use, discomfort, and health effects; not limited to property value)
- Blair v. Anderson, 570 N.E.2d 1337 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991) (permanent injunction should be carefully limited to acts found to be nuisance)
- Drees Co., Inc. v. Thompson, 868 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (discretion in granting/denying permanent injunction; reversal only for abuse of discretion)
- Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (due process considerations in contempt when control of procedure is complex)