Over the years, the Iowa courts have dealt with many nuisance cases both in an agricultural and non-agricultural context. Two points are clear from the rulings – one landowner cannot unreasonably interfere with another landowners use and enjoyment of their property; and negligence is not the same thing as nuisance. On the latter point, it doesn’t matter if a landowner has obtained all of the necessary permits, is conducting their activity in accordance with best management practices and is incompliance with all applicable zoning rules - the activity can still be deemed to be a nuisance. This case is the latest installment in that long line of nuisance litigation.
The plaintiffs owned properties in a commercial area of Wheatland, Iowa. A nearby site had been used as a grain storage and drying facility. The defendants purchased the facility and expanded the bins from three to five. The neighbors complained about the increased dust, chaff and beeswings during the harvesting season, as well as the increased noise from the grain dryer and truck traffic. The defendant ignored these complaints, and sought the city’s approval for a building permit so that two more grain bins could be built. The city approved the permit and the plaintiffs sued the defendant for nuisance. Instead of trying to patch things up with the plaintiffs, the defendant went ahead and built the two additional bins. That proved to be an unwise and costly move.
The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the defendant’s activity constituted a nuisance and awarding the plaintiffs $190,000 for damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the defendant claimed that because their tract had been used as a grain drying and storage facility before the plaintiffs moved in nearby on their tracts, that the defendant had priority of location and shouldn’t be found to be a nuisance. While “coming to the nuisance” can be a defense to a nuisance action (the idea is that someone shouldn’t move next to an existing activity and then sue the owner on a nuisance theory), the court pointed out that the correct analysis was whether the complained-of activity existed at the time the complaining party moved in next door. Here, the court noted that testimony revealed that the grain drying and storage activity did not interfere with the adjacent owners’ property rights until the defendant expanded the scope of the activity. At that time, the plaintiffs had already moved in. So, it was the plaintiffs that had priority of location, not the defendant. Also, it did not matter that the area involved was commercial in nature - that does not prevent a court from finding that a nuisance exists. The key is whether the defendant’s activities unreasonably interfere with adjacent owners’ right to use and enjoy their property. On that point, the court held that substantial evidence existed supporting the trial court’s finding of a nuisance.
As for the calculation of damages, the rule generally utilized is diminution in the value of property caused by the nuisance. How that amount is actually computed is a bit imprecise. Clearly, the better records a disaffected party has, the easier it is to recover for the loss of value caused by the nuisance. The plaintiffs utilized a formula based on how many hours per day they were at home, how many days a year the nuisance activity interfered with their use and enjoyment of their property and an amount per hour for suffering from the defendant’s activities. The court sustained the use of a formula, but reduced the damage award slightly based on a review of the evidence. The court also eliminated the award of attorney fees – Iowa law doesn’t allow them in nuisance cases (unless the parties agree via contract) without the defendant acting in bad faith or in an oppressive manner. That wasn’t the case here. The bottom line – the activity was a nuisance and the plaintiffs recovered $156,622. That’s a tidy sum for ignoring the rights of one’s neighbors. Miller, et al. v. Rohling, 720 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2006).