Ronald Robertson, Jr. and Dennis Samson v. David Cohen and Monya Cohen, 20-0341

Petitioners own a house adjacent to respondents’ larger parcel; both use a 40-foot right-of-way that crosses respondents’ lot to access their properties.
Quaint Hills Mountain Section HOA authorized replacing a manual gate with an automated swing gate (keypad/solar) and installing a halide area light on respondents’ property; a neighbor (Hillsman) later added a security camera.
The camera originally captured part of petitioners’ house/yard; the light and camera were later moved/shielded after mediation (camera no longer views petitioners’ house; light produces no measurable illumination at petitioners’ driveway/bedroom).
Petitioners sued respondents and Hillsman for private nuisance and invasion of privacy; Hillsman is deceased and not a party because petitioners failed to substitute his estate.
Circuit Court granted summary judgment for respondents, finding no disputed material facts as to nuisance or invasion of privacy; this appeal challenges that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was improper because nuisance is a jury question	Robertson/Samson: Taylor requires jury resolution of nuisance issues; court wrongly weighed evidence	Cohen: Petitioners presented no material factual dispute or evidence to defeat summary judgment	Affirmed — no genuine, material fact dispute; summary judgment appropriate
Whether petitioners were entitled to a jury trial on injunctive relief	Petitioners: jury should decide nuisance and injunctive issues	Cohen: Permanent injunctions are equitable; no right to jury on equitable relief	Held for defendants (citing precedent that permanent injunctions are equitable)
Whether respondents’ mitigation (moving/shielding light and moving camera) eliminated any nuisance	Petitioners: remedial measures do not bar past-damages or nuisance claims	Cohen: mitigation removed any ongoing nuisance (no light in house; camera no longer viewing)	Held for defendants — remedial measures eliminated any nuisance to abate; no continuing injury
Whether the security camera and gate constituted an invasion of privacy	Petitioners: camera captured house/yard and unreasonably intruded on seclusion	Cohen: camera was installed by Hillsman (not respondent), was moved, and did not surveil petitioners thereafter	Held for defendants — camera did not meet unreasonable intrusion standard; no evidence respondents surveilled petitioners

Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 1984) (defines invasion of privacy as including unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion)
Taylor v. Culloden Pub. Serv. Dist., 214 W. Va. 639, 591 S.E.2d 197 (W. Va. 2003) (summary judgment standard in nuisance cases and when jury determination is required)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (federal summary judgment standard: court determines whether genuine issue for trial exists)
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (W. Va. 1995) (clarifies materiality requirement and summary judgment standards)
Weatherholt v. Weatherholt, 234 W. Va. 722, 769 S.E.2d 872 (W. Va. 2015) (no right to jury trial on permanent injunction; equitable relief)
Bansbach v. Harbin, 229 W. Va. 287, 728 S.E.2d 533 (W. Va. 2012) (private nuisance recovery requires significant harm to property rights)
Booker v. Foose, 216 W. Va. 727, 613 S.E.2d 94 (W. Va. 2005) (definition and elements of nuisance)
Hendricks v. Stalnaker, 181 W. Va. 31, 380 S.E.2d 198 (W. Va. 1989) (gravity of harm vs. social value test for unreasonableness in nuisance)