McDowell v. Sapienza
2018 SD 1
| S.D. | 2018Background
- The Sapienzas demolished a noncontributing house and built a new, larger residence in the McKennan Park Historic District (a district listed on state and national registers).
- Adjacent owners Pierce and Barbara McDowell (contributing historic property owners) challenged the new house’s height and proximity, alleging violations of a state historic-district regulation (ARSD 24:52:07:04) and a city chimney rule, and sought a mandatory injunction to modify/rebuild the house.
- The City of Sioux Falls issued the building permit; Sapienzas used an architect initially but later completed construction with a builder unfamiliar with historic-district standards.
- The McDowells alleged irreparable harm to their use (fireplace rendered unusable, loss of light/privacy) and to the historic character of McKennan Park; the circuit court granted a mandatory injunction and held the City owed a duty to enforce the codes.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the injunction based on violation of the state historic-district regulation, reversed the circuit court’s conclusion that the chimney provision functioned as a setback restriction, and reversed the finding that the City owed a duty to the McDowells.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of chimney ordinance (§ R1003.9) as a setback limiting Sapienzas’ siting | McDowells: chimney rule requires nearby structures be sited so chimney extends 2 ft above any structure within 10 ft — operates as a setback protecting their chimney | Sapienzas: § R1003.9 regulates chimney height on the chimney-bearing structure, not siting of neighboring structures | Reversed: § R1003.9 governs chimney height, not a separate setback on neighboring lots — no violation by Sapienzas on that basis |
| Applicability of ARSD 24:52:07:04 (new-construction standards in historic districts) to Sapienzas’ house | McDowells: rule applies to new construction within listed historic districts and limits height, design, etc.; Sapienzas’ house exceeded the allowable height | Sapienzas: rule applies only to individually listed properties on state/national registers, not to noncontributing parcels within a listed district | Affirmed: regulation applies to new construction within a listed historic district (statutory definition includes districts); Sapienzas’ house violated the height standard |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion in granting mandatory injunction | McDowells: harms (loss of fireplace, light/privacy and damage to historic district) are irreparable; monetary relief inadequate; equities favor modification | Sapienzas: harms are compensable or disproportionate (tearing down costly), defenses of laches and assumption of risk apply | Affirmed: injunction was authorized and not an abuse of discretion — court properly found irreparable harm to McDowells and the historic district, culpability, and that equities favored relief |
| Whether City owed a duty to McDowells re: permit issuance / enforcement (public-duty doctrine) | McDowells: City negligently issued permit/failed to enforce rules; owed them a duty to enforce historic and chimney regulations | City: building permits and code enforcement impose a general public duty, not a duty to individual property owners; public-duty doctrine bars negligence claim | Reversed: circuit court erred — under precedent and public-duty doctrine, building-code permitting/inspection does not create a special duty to individual adjacent owners and McDowells did not prove the elements of a special duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Harksen v. Peska, 581 N.W.2d 170 (S.D. 1998) (equitable destruction of a completed dwelling is disfavored; proportionality of hardship is critical)
- Hagen v. City of Sioux Falls, 464 N.W.2d 396 (S.D. 1990) (building-code inspections and enforcement impose a general public duty, not an individualized duty supporting negligence liability)
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor, 538 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1995) (framework for analyzing special-duty exceptions to the public-duty doctrine)
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor, 567 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 1997) (further explaining limits on governmental liability and special-duty requirements)
- Taylor v. Stevens County, 759 P.2d 447 (Wash. 1988) (issuing permits serves public regulatory function and does not guarantee individual protection; responsibility for compliance rests with builders/owners)
- Faulkner v. Town of Chestertown, 428 A.2d 879 (Md. 1981) (historic-district controls may be enforced to prevent incongruous new construction that undermines district character)
- A-S-P Assocs. v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1979) (regulation of new construction in historic districts is necessary to preserve district character)
- Vieux Carre Prop. Owners & Assocs., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 167 So. 2d 367 (La. 1964) (upholding historic-district regulation to prevent destructive intrusions)