This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Trespass
Private Nuisance

Mark J. Hanks, Jeanne A. Hanks v. Gary M. Hitch, Dorothy L. Hitch, Individually, and as Trustees of the Gary M. Hitch and Dorothy L. Hitch Trust

Published: Jun. 10, 2006 | Result Date: Mar. 16, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV228539 Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lindsay F. Nielson


Defendant

William M. Slaughter
(Slaughter, Reagan & Cole LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Charles Burnham
(technical)

Kay W. Bolton
(technical)

Marshall Schmidt
(technical)

Defendant

James Dean
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiffs Mark Hanks, a Ventura County Sheriff's Deputy and Jeanne Hanks, a disable, were living in a home on Amador Road in Ventura in 2003 when their neighbors, Defendants Gary and Dorothy Hitch, both retired, finished remodeling their home. The remodeling included installation of a barbecue in their backyard. As a result, the Hitches barbecued several times a week in the summer and slightly less in the fall and winter. The Hankses, who are retired and in their 60s, filed a lawsuit against the Hitches and their family trust. The lawsuit alleged causes of action for nuisance and trespass.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants' frequent barbecuing activities caused grease, smoke and other debris to enter their property. In addition, the plaintiffs also contended that the use of the barbecue was unreasonable and interfered with the use and enjoyment of their home. Through the testimony of a licensed real estate broker, the plaintiffs contended that in the event they decide to sell their home, they would have to notify prospective buyers about the defendants' barbecue. The plaintiffs contended that the value of their home could depreciate by as much as $17,000.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that the plaintiffs' allegations of damages were not supported by documentation. The defendants contended that their barbecuing activities occurred before 10 pm and lasted less than one hour and no other neighbors complained to them in the almost 30 years they lived in their home. Despite this, the defendants tried to accommodate the plaintiffs by attempting to alleviate the alleged problem. The defendants also claimed that the plaintiffs' complaints were unreasonable because the plaintiffs themselves had an outdoor barbecue. In addition, the defendants' barbecue was properly constructed and approved in accordance with industry standards. Finally, the plaintiffs' real estate broker conceded that she was not privy to any situation in which a barbecue was a required disclosure during a real estate sale transaction.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought damages for past and future pain and suffering and damages associated with the depreciation of the value of their home. The plaintiffs also requested a mandatory injunction that would require the defendants to remedy the problem before having any further barbecues.

Result

Defense verdict.


#119034

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390