McVicars v. Christensen, 320 P.3d 948

Bret and Eddieka Christensen built a 31,200 sq. ft. enclosed fabric (Coverall) riding-arena building on their property near John and Julie McVicars’ home; construction began after the McVicars purchased their property.
McVicars sued claiming the building and associated activities (noise, lights, dust, traffic, odor, flies) created a private nuisance and sought damages, dismantling of the building, and injunctions.
After a bench trial, the district court found a private nuisance based on the cumulative effects, including the building’s size and proximity, and ordered removal of the building and other abatement.
The Christensens appealed; the district court’s injunction was stayed pending appeal.
The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the building’s mere size and proximity cannot alone constitute a nuisance and that the court must instead address the objectionable activities and craft reasonable restrictions if needed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Christensens’ conduct constituted a private nuisance	McVicars: cumulative effects (including building size/location and activities) unreasonably interfered with enjoyment of property	Christensens: building lawful, served useful purpose; size/proximity alone not a nuisance; activities lawful	Court: size/proximity alone do not constitute a nuisance; remand to assess cumulative effects excluding mere size/proximity
Whether injunction requiring removal and traffic limits was proper	McVicars: removal and limits necessary to abate nuisance	Christensens: relocation is extreme; court should impose narrower restrictions	Court: requiring relocation abused discretion; court should fashion reasonable activity-based restrictions instead
Whether Right to Farm Act (RTFA) bars the nuisance claim	Christensens: RTFA protects agricultural expansions from nuisance suits	McVicars: RTFA inapplicable because changes stem from defendants’ activities, not changed surrounding nonagricultural uses	Court: RTFA does not apply where nuisance arises from expansion/activities themselves (aligns with Payne v. Skaar)
Whether unclean hands defense should bar relief	Christensens: McVicars acted inequitably or provoked dispute	McVicars: no inequitable conduct warranting defense	Court: defendants failed to develop argument/authority on appeal; declined to address—district court found no evidence to support unclean hands

White v. Bernhart, 41 Idaho 665, 241 P. 367 (landowner may erect structures on own land; aesthetic displeasure alone not a nuisance)
Sundowner, Inc. v. King, 95 Idaho 367, 509 P.2d 785 (structure erected solely to injure neighbor may be a nuisance)
Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Ashton, 92 Idaho 571, 448 P.2d 185 (injunctions disfavored where activity serves useful purpose; courts should target objectionable features)
Payne v. Skaar, 127 Idaho 341, 900 P.2d 1352 (RTFA does not bar nuisance claims when the offensive condition arises from the operation’s expansion rather than changed surrounding uses)
Crea v. Crea, 135 Idaho 246, 16 P.3d 922 (standard for appellate review of bench trial findings)
Ada County Highway Dist. v. Total Success Invs., LLC, 145 Idaho 360, 179 P.3d 323 (clean-hands doctrine defined and applied)