2011 IL App (2d) 100565
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs sued to declare a fly nuisance from defendants' cattle operation and seek injunctive relief; trial court denied summary judgment and entered an injunction against defendants.
- Defendants purchased 160 acres in 1991 to operate cattle, with operation starting in 1992.
- Plaintiffs own property across the street and west of the farm; Clarence Toftoy previously owned the across-street land and deeded 1.83 acres (including the old farmhouse) to plaintiffs in 1998; plaintiffs later obtained an additional 58 acres in 2002.
- Clarence’s farmhouse on the original parcel was demolished; plaintiffs built a new residence at the same location and moved in during 2004.
- Plaintiffs alleged flies began to inundate their property around 2007; expert entomologist linked the source to defendants’ farm and recommended breeding-site elimination.
- Court held the Farm Nuisance Suit Act did not bar the suit, found a common-law nuisance, but vacated the injunction for vagueness and overbreadth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Farm Nuisance Suit Act bars the suit | Toftoys—Act does not bar claims; changes were not 'changed conditions' transforming operation into nuisance | Rosenwinkel—Act bars nuisance suits by changing conditions in surrounding area | Act does not bar the suit. |
| Whether flies from defendants’ farm constitute a nuisance | Fly invasion is substantial and unreasonably interferes with use and enjoyment | No substantial nuisance; defenses negate unreasonableness | Flies constitute a substantial and unreasonable private nuisance. |
| Whether the injunction was proper or excessive | Court-ordered measures were appropriate to eliminate breeding sites | Injunction overly vague/broad and not supported by evidence | Injunction vacated for vagueness and breadth; no remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill.2d 179 (Ill. 1997) (nuisance standard; balancing harm and benefit; injunctive relief discretion)
- Woods v. Khan, 95 Ill.App.3d 1087 (Ill. App. 1981) (substantial invasion; material annoyance)
- Dobbs v. Wiggins, 401 Ill.App.3d 367 (Ill. App. 2010) (nuisance defined; standards for injunctive relief)
- Pasulka v. Koob, 170 Ill.App.3d 191 (Ill. App. 1988) (factors for determining unreasonableness of invasion)
- Gardner v. Mullins, 234 Ill.2d 503 (Ill. 2009) (statutory interpretation; broad application of right-to-farm statutes)