Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.
212 Md. App. 451
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Schuman sued Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI) and neighbors Darko and Svetlana Popovic over secondhand cigarette smoke entering Schuman’s unit and patio.
- GHI is a Maryland nonstock housing cooperative organized under the Mutual Ownership Contract framework; Schuman has lived there since 1995 and the Popovics since 1996, with townhouses sharing walls and rear patios.
- GHI initially sealed cracks and hired an industrial hygienist; no detectable nicotine was found in Schuman’s unit at that time.
- During 2008–2009 renovations, drywall removal between units reopened the exposure; despite complaints and letters, GHI would seal more areas but would not require the Popovics to stop smoking because the community was not smoke-free.
- Schuman filed suit in March 2010; the circuit court granted a preliminary injunction only for indoor smoking with Mr. Popovic’s consent, and later trials found insufficient harm to support remaining claims.
- On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the injunction ruling and held smoking outside could not be deemed a nuisance per se or a substantial interference; the circuit court’s final determinations were affirmed, with remand for a declaratory judgment consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Popovic’s outdoor smoking constitutes a nuisance under contract and common law. | Schuman contends smoking violates GHI’s contract and is a common-law nuisance. | GHI allowed smoking as historically permitted; no substantial interference. | Not a nuisance; no substantial interference established. |
| Whether GHI breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by permitting Popovic’s smoking. | GHI’s inaction breaches quiet enjoyment. | No breach; smoking not a material interference under the contract. | No breach found. |
| Whether Schuman proved damages for trespass or negligence from secondhand smoke. | Smoke entering his home caused injury; trespass and negligence applicable. | Insufficient evidence of harm; intangible inhalational intrusion not actionable. | No damages proven. |
| Whether a declaratory judgment should be entered finding smoking a nuisance under GHI’s MOC. | Declaration that smoking constitutes a nuisance under the contract should be entered. | Not warranted given lack of nuisance and harm. | Remand for entry of a declaratory judgment consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Comm'rs of Trappe, 204 Md. 165 (Md. 1954) (nuisance per se framework; general nuisance principle)
- Gorman v. Sabo, 210 Md. 155 (Md. 1956) (nuisance requires substantial and unreasonable interference)
- Five Oaks Corp. v. Gathmann, 190 Md. 348 (Md. 1948) (discomforts of living close to others; when nuisance arises from community conditions)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright, 433 Md. 303 (Md. 2013) (nuisance analysis requires substantial interference; harm not proven)
- DeNardo v. Corneloup, 163 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2007) (nuisance not per se despite health concerns; rental context)
- America v. Sunspray Condominium Ass’n, 61 A.3d 1249 (Me. 2013) (private nuisance claims require particularized showing of exposure)