The definition of "Quiet Enjoyment" and how it applies to the WAPA situation

I got this from an attorney friend, and I thought I would pass it along. Quiet enjoyment cases are difficult to win, according to my friend, but it might be something worth considering, if we can't get resolution by either Feinstein or Doolittle. Again, I strongly urge you to give both of these offices a call. You can refer to a letter I received dated July 27th from Senator Feinstein's office and to my continuing conversation with Chris Parilo in Congressman Doolittle's office.

Quiet Enjoyment

The law of nuisance protects our beneficial interest in property from the unreasonable interference of those around us. The focus is not on the nature of the person's conduct causing the problem, but whether it results in an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of our land. The law encompasses a broad range of interference, including overhanging branches, barking dogs, dust, seeping sewage, bright lights, loud noises, explosions and vibrations, industrial pollutants, and even unwanted telephone calls. What teh courts must decide is whether the nuisance complained of is harmful or disruptive enough to justify legal intervention.

The problem in deciding nuisance cases is that the courts must balance the competing interests of property owners. Each of you has the right to use your property without unjust interference or intrusion from the other. You want your fresh air and your neighbor wants his pig farm. There must ultimately be a compromise, and the basis for this determination is the “reasonable user.” Essentially, court intervention is justified only when the interference or intrusion goes beyond what other persons in the vicinity could reasonably expect to put up with.

There can be no single standard that will apply to all locations. Consideration may be given to a number of factors including but not limited to the severity of the interference, the character of the locale and the usefulness of the neighbor’s conduct. The character of the locality is an important factor in determining what standard of comfort you can reasonably expect as a property owner. The standard to be expected in a predominantly residential neighborhood differs from that of an industrial or commercial one. For example, you cannot reasonably expect to have peace and quiet if you build a home right next to an airport runway. Nor can you reasonably expect a stink-free environment if you build a home next to an established pig farm.
The severity and effect of the interference are also important. If your neighbors are blasting dynamite and the vibrations end up cracking the foundation of your home, it would likely justify legal intervention to a greater extent than a neighbor’s barking dog. The former may cause physical damage to the structure of your home while the latter may simply be a fleeting annoyance with no real lasting effects.

The utility or importance of the neighbor’s conduct to the community at large may also be an important factor to consider. However, this tends to be of assistance more in deciding what remedy is appropriate rather than whether the neighbor is liable in the first place. If your pig-farming neighbor is providing jobs to many local workers, the penalty may be reduced in light of the fact that his business, although disruptive to the home owners next door, is beneficial to the community as a whole.