213 A.3d 1018
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Neighbors Douglas and Shiu Matenkoski sued Joseph and Victoria Greer after the Greers operated an automobile repair/restoration activity from their R‑2 residential property that produced loud noise and noxious fumes, often at night and on weekends.
- The Greers built a two‑car garage close to the Matenkoskis’ property line and sold multiple vehicles from the premises; evidence showed at least 17 vehicle sales in four years, several not titled to the Greers.
- The Matenkoskis documented the activity with audio‑visual recordings and repeatedly complained to the Greers and township officials without effective enforcement.
- After a three‑day bench trial the trial court found the Greers’ testimony not credible, held their activities violated zoning/no‑impact home‑business rules and constituted a private nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and entered a preliminary injunction restricting vehicle repair tools and hours.
- The Greers appealed the injunction (and unsuccessfully sought to assert that the Matenkoskis violated the Wiretap Act by recording them). The Superior Court exercised interlocutory jurisdiction over the grant of the injunction and quashed review of denial of the Greers’ counter‑injunction claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Matenkoskis) | Defendant's Argument (Greer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greers’ automobile work violated local zoning/no‑impact home business rules and supported injunctive relief | Greers’ activity was commercial, noisy and odorous, incompatible with residential zoning and not a no‑impact home occupation | The work was a lawful home activity/home business permitted in residential zone | Held: Court found commercial nature and impacts defeated no‑impact status; injunction appropriate to stop zoning violations |
| Whether injunction’s tool ban and hour restrictions were overbroad or vague | Restrictions were tailored to abate the nuisance and restore prior status quo | Restrictions are too broad (cover non‑noisy tools) and unreasonably limit lawful activity/times | Held: Restrictions (tools barred unless used on Greers’ titled personal vehicles and work limited to 8 a.m.–6 p.m.) were reasonably tailored and not overbroad |
| Whether recordings by Matenkoskis violated the Wiretap Act and barred equitable relief (unclean hands) | Recordings intercepted oral communications, violating Wiretap Act; Matenkoskis come with unclean hands and should be denied injunctive relief | Recordings captured public/outdoor activity and noise; no reasonable expectation of privacy, so no Wiretap violation | Held: No Wiretap Act violation—Greers lacked reasonable expectation of privacy; unclean‑hands defense rejected |
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to review the injunction now | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Held: Superior Court exercised interlocutory jurisdiction under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4)(ii) to review grant of preliminary injunction but quashed appeal as to denial of Greers’ counter‑injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (standard and prerequisites for preliminary injunction review)
- Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998) (Wiretap Act requires reasonable expectation of privacy for oral‑communication protection)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (no reasonable expectation of privacy for statements made within earshot in public/semipublic settings)
- John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc., 369 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 1977) (injunctions must be narrowly tailored and definite)
- DiMattia v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of E. Whiteland Township, 168 A.3d 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (residential property work that resembles vehicle‑repair shop is not incidental home use)
- Page v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Walker Township, 471 A.2d 1348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (motor‑vehicle repair businesses are not within customary residential pursuits)