Michael A. Ursitti v. James H. Wilson ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0200-22
MICHAEL A. URSITTI and
LISA A. COSCIA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JAMES H. WILSON, CHRISTINA
WILSON, EQUIHEART
VETERINARY SERVICES, LLC,
and EQUIHEART FARMS, LLC,
THE TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON,
a municipal corporation, THE
TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
a land use agency of the TOWNSHIP
OF WASHINGTON, and
Defendants-Respondents,
and
THE TOWNSHIP
OF WASHINGTON BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.
_______________________________
Argued January 9, 2024 – Decided February 8, 2024
Before Judges Whipple, Enright and Paganelli.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, General Equity, Hunterdon
County, Docket No. C-014017-20.
Erica Lynn Edwards argued the cause for appellants
(Erica Edwards, Esq. Law Offices, LLC, attorney;
Erica Lynn Edwards, on the brief).
Gerald J. Kelly argued the cause for respondents
James H. Wilson, Christina Wilson, Equiheart
Veterinary Services, LLC, and Equiheart Farms, LLC.
PER CURIAM
Michael A. Rusti and Lisa A Coscia (collectively, plaintiffs) and James
H. Wilson and Christina Wilson (collectively, defendants) have been neighbors
for over five years. During that time, defendants have had use of a driveway
on an access easement on plaintiffs' property, plaintiffs have objected to the
manner in which the driveway was used, and defendants have objected to
plaintiffs' increasingly intrusive and intimidating behavior. As a result, the
relationship between the neighbors has deteriorated over the years.
On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the trial judge's determination that their
use of cameras and a radar speed detector to monitor the easement constitutes
a private nuisance. Judge Margaret Goodzeit, Chancery Division, oversaw this
A-0200-22
2
case at the trial level, issued extensive findings of fact and legal conclusions
after a three-day bench trial, and fashioned an equitable remedy. Based upon
her findings and legal reasoning, we agree with her decision and affirm.
Below, we briefly recount the essential facts, relevant to this issue.
Plaintiffs have lived at and owned the property at 14 Coddington Lane,
Tewksbury, since the residence was built in 1998. Defendants purchased and
moved into the property at 16 Coddington Lane, Washington Township, in
2017. Defendants also have certain businesses associated with their farm
activities and veterinary practice, which operate out of the property under a
farmland assessment and an accessory use home occupation approval.
Despite being in a different municipality and different county, 1
defendants' property is adjacent to, and behind, plaintiffs' property.
Defendants' property would be landlocked and inaccessible, but for an
easement that was memorialized in an agreement filed in 1998. By agreement,
plaintiffs' property is encumbered by an access easement, measuring
approximately 530' long by 30' wide, to the benefit of defendants' property.
The access easement agreement grants to defendants, as successors in the
estate from the original Grantees:
1
14 Coddington Lane is in Tewksbury, Hunterdon County. 16 Coddington
Lane is in Washington Township, Morris County.
A-0200-22
3
1. [A]n exclusive access easement over that portion of
the Property [at 14 Coddington Lane] . . . (the
"Easement Area") . . . , which includes the Driveway,
only for the purpose of providing ingress and egress
from Coddington Lane to [16 Coddington Lane].
2. The easement created hereby shall be subject to the
following:
(a) Existing rights and easements, including, but not
limited to, those for access, drainage, utilities, water
and sewer mains, pipelines and telephone lines located
in the Easement Area.
When they purchased their property, plaintiffs installed a home security
system that included panic alarm buttons registered with, and continually
monitored by, the Tewksbury Township Police. Their system also includes
heat detectors, water breach devices, and other security measures. In 2019,
plaintiffs became suspicious about damage to their rear fence and installed a
camera to surveil the fence. The camera was attached to a tree in the wooded
backyard, approximately sixty feet from defendants' residence and was housed
in a birdhouse casing. Plaintiffs deny any intention to surveil defendants'
residence and assert the camera was placed in the birdhouse to protect it from
the elements, as it was designed for indoor use.
Defendants thought the camera was placed surreptitiously and made two
reports to the police about it. Plaintiffs removed this birdhouse camera a short
A-0200-22
4
time later. In 2019, plaintiffs installed other cameras on their property to
monitor their backdoor, gate, mailbox, driveway, and an office area. One
camera looked in the direction of their car parking pad and viewed a portion of
the easement beyond the parking pad. Plaintiffs also installed two cameras on
a pole adjacent to the easement for presence detection for the length of the
easement and real-time video. One faces south toward the road, and one faces
north toward defendants' home. Defendants' residence is not within the
sightline of the easement cameras.
Plaintiffs later upgraded their outdoor cameras to consistently
transmitting infrared cameras with nighttime capability, installing five of them
in late November and December 2020. They did not install any cameras facing
defendants' property. The camera from the birdhouse was installed to monitor
the wires on the two infrared cameras near the easement. At trial, plaintiff-
husband explained that he monitored those wires because they could be cut by
a perpetrator or squirrels. He stated that this camera has audio capability but
denied that such monitoring was enabled. Plaintiffs testified at trial t hat they
were concerned about confrontations and potential incidents on the easement,
and they increased their security monitoring to protect themselves.
A-0200-22
5
Plaintiffs asserted that, since defendants moved in and began operating
their businesses from 16 Coddington Lane, traffic volume on the easement
increased and the character of the vehicles using the easement changed to
include more commercial and delivery vehicles, as well as heavier vehicles
with trailers. They also claimed that it is common for vehicles to travel at
"excessive speeds" on the easement. Plaintiffs asserted these negative changes
in the traffic using the driveway impacted their use and enjoyment—as well as
the potential resale value—of their property.
Plaintiff-husband testified he observed on the driveway vehicles
travelling at speeds plaintiffs "thought . . . were not appropriate." Plaintiffs
voiced their concerns to defendants in casual conversation and text messages,
but purportedly witnessed no change in the driving behavior. Begin ning in
late 2019, plaintiffs also began reaching out to the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx,
and UPS to complain about the speeds driven by their delivery drivers on the
easement, again with no appreciable change in behavior. In June 2020,
plaintiff-husband also stopped various delivery drivers—as well as
defendants—as they were on the driveway and asked them to drive more
slowly.
A-0200-22
6
In August 2020, while defendants were away on vacation, plaintiffs
installed on the driveway four speed bumps and ten signs—stating, "Speed
Bumps"; the defendants discovered this installation upon their return home.
The number was later increased to six speed bumps. Earlier that summer, in
July 2020, plaintiffs had ordered the installation of "No dumping" signs by the
property line between plaintiffs' property and defendants' house and the
installation of "Private property/No trespassing" signs on plaintiffs' property at
the end of the easement, with all signs pointing toward defendants' property.
"No parking" signs were placed on the other side of the easement, facing the
driveway. These signs were installed by plaintiffs in response to a March 2020
letter from defendants' counsel that asserted plaintiffs would be considered
trespassing if they entered the easement.
In November 2021, plaintiffs installed a radar device to monitor the
speed of vehicles travelling on the easement. Plaintiff-husband testified he
could then cross-reference "fast" radar readings with images from his video
feed from the easement to determine whether the reading was from a delivery
vehicle or a private car. Plaintiff-husband kept a log of such readings and
vehicles for about six weeks after installing the radar device to present
evidence to various delivery companies.
A-0200-22
7
At trial, plaintiff-wife testified that her home had been "a sanctuary"
before defendants moved in, but that it was "not a pleasant place to live
anymore." Plaintiff-wife stated that she was "angry" and "heartbroken" and
that she disapproved of defendants' running businesses on their propert y. She
complained of noisy animals and too much traffic on the easement. She
recounted her numerous failed attempts through Washington Township to
obtain relief against the defendants' commercial activities, including opposing
permits sought by the defendants, although they were within the zoned use of
the property. Plaintiff-wife testified plaintiffs had asked other neighbors to
likewise oppose defendants' permit requests. Plaintiffs had also sought to
relocate the school bus stop utilized by defendants' children away from the end
of their driveway to a location approximately half a mile away.
At trial, defendants testified they felt their privacy had been invaded by
the cameras monitoring the easement area. Specifically, defendants related the
oppressive effect the surveillance had on family members and visitors. They
were uncomfortable with the constant monitoring of their comings and
goings—not only of visitors, but of defendants themselves and their children.
Defendant-wife testified they told their children not to talk while walking on
the easement because of the camera with audio recording capability. She also
A-0200-22
8
emphasized that it felt "creepy" being constantly surveilled, especially since
they had no knowledge how the captured images were being used. She further
objected that plaintiffs' surveillance permitted them to know "exactly when
[she] left in the mornings and exactly when [she] came home at night," as well
as when her children "c[a]me off the bus and . . . walk[ed] up the driveway by
themselves."
Defendants asserted plaintiffs' surveillance inappropriately interfered
with their free use and enjoyment of the easement as guaranteed by the access
easement agreement. Defendants testified they objected to the easement's
being monitored at all, but they specifically took issue with the constant
monitoring of vehicle speeds, as well as plaintiffs' stopping vehicles on the
driveway. Defendants contended that the surveillance was intended to
intimidate and interfere with their use and enjoyment of the easement, as well
as the use by those visiting them.
Plaintiff-husband stated at trial that he was willing to post a "twenty-
four-hour surveillance" sign to alert visitors that surveillance was running at
A-0200-22
9
all times, and that he was willing to permit defendants to place a camera on the
northwest corner of the easement, looking south down the driveway. 2
Before the current litigation began, defendants' attorney sent a "cease
and desist letter" to plaintiffs in March 2020, requesting plaintiffs refrain from
interfering with defendants' rights to use the easement, specifically by not
proceeding with their threat to install speed bumps across the driveway.
Undeterred, plaintiffs installed the speed bumps and signs on the easement
while defendants were away on vacation. In November 2020, defendants'
attorney sent letters to plaintiffs' counsel demanding the immediate removal of
the speed bumps or defendants would remove them themselves.
In response, plaintiffs filed an order to show cause for a preliminary
injunction with temporary restraints and a verified complaint to prevent
defendants from removing the speed bumps. Defendants countersued. The
preliminary injunction was denied; defendants removed the speed bumps from
the driveway and plaintiffs had the signs removed. Claims remained, however,
and the disharmony between the neighbors continued.
2
Defendants had once placed a camera, unwittingly on a different neighbor's
property, near that area so they could monitor who was coming up the
driveway toward their house. Defendants' camera was, ultimately, removed
after the plaintiff admonished the neighbor by having his lawyer send a letter
threatening litigation if the camera was not removed.
A-0200-22
10
Defendants raised counterclaims sounding in nuisance and trespass.
Plaintiffs added claims against new defendants—the Township of Washington,
the Township of Washington Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the Township
of Washington Board of Education. The trial court judge dismissed all claims
against the public entity defendants on March 31, 2021. The remaining parties
stipulated to the dismissal of one count of plaintiffs' second amended
complaint. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the one remaining
count and on their counterclaims, and plaintiffs cross-moved.
By order dated February 14, 2022, the trial judge granted summary
judgment to defendants, dismissing plaintiffs' remaining count. By this same
order, the trial judge granted, in part, summary judgment to plaintiffs,
dismissing defendants' counterclaims for trespass and interference with use by
circulating false information and filing incident reports.
Judge Goodzeit presided over a three-day non-jury trial on defendants'
remaining nuisance claim and rendered a decision finding generally in
defendants' favor. In the judgment, the trial court clarified maintenance
obligations for both parties; defined circumstances permitting plaintiffs'
presence in the easement area; addressed the removed speed bumps and
various protrusions of plaintiffs' improvements into the easement area; and
A-0200-22
11
required the removal of most signs facing defendants' property and removal of
the speed detector and three cameras monitoring the easement area and each
other.
This appeal followed in which plaintiffs appeal only the trial court's
order to remove the speed detector and infrared cameras that surveil the
driveway.
"[A] judge sitting in a court of equity has a broad range of discretion to
fashion the appropriate remedy in order to vindicate a wrong consistent with
principles of fairness, justice, and the law." Graziano v. Grant, 326 N.J. Super.
328, 342 (App. Div. 1999). We review an equitable remedy for an abuse of
discretion, determining "whether the court properly exercised its discretion in
fashioning the appropriate equitable remedy." Todaro v. Cnty. of Union, 392
N.J. Super. 448, 456 (App. Div. 2007).
Our review of a trial judge's findings is limited. See Fagliarone v. Twp.
of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 40 N.J. 221(1963). We defer to the trial judge's factual findings that are well-supported
by competent evidence in the record. See Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit
Union, 199 N.J. 381, 397 (2009). However, we accord no deference to the
trial judge's conclusions on issues of law and review such issues of law de
A-0200-22
12
novo. State v. Smith, 212 N.J. 365, 387 (2012); Manalapan Realty, L.P. v.
Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, (1995); Pressler & Verniero,
Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 3.1 on R. 2:10-2 (2024). We review mixed
issues of law and fact de novo. In re Malone, 381 N.J. Super. 344, 349 (App.
Div. 2005).
I.
Plaintiffs' chief argument is that the trial judge abused her discretion
when she found plaintiffs' monitoring of the easement with cameras and a
speed detector constitutes a private nuisance. Based upon the well-developed
record, we disagree.
"A cause of action for private nuisance derives from [one party's]
'unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment' of the [the other
party's] property." Ross v. Lowitz, 222 N.J. 494, 505 (2015) (quoting Sans v.
Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc. (Sans II), 29 N.J. 438, 448 (1959)). For a
party to be liable for a private nuisance, that party's conduct must be the "legal
cause of an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of
land, and the invasion is either (a) intentional and unreasonable, or (b)
unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for
negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions o r
A-0200-22
13
activities." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822 (Am. L. Inst. 1979); see also
Ross, 222 N.J. at 505-06 (citing Burke v. Briggs, 239 N.J. Super 269, 272-73
(App. Div. 1990)) ("Our courts have adopted the standard of Restatement
section 822 to assess liability for private nuisance.").
Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that the specific causes and
symptoms of a private nuisance claim defy enumeration, Sans II, 29 N.J. at
448, and that the claim requires an individualized analysis, considering "the
facts . . . in their totality," and a balancing of equities, id. at 450.
The essence of a private nuisance is an unreasonable
interference with the use and enjoyment of land. The
elements are myriad. The law has never undertaken to
define all of the possible sources of annoyance and
discomfort which would justify such a finding.
Litigation of this type usually deals with the
conflicting interests of property owners and the
question of the reasonableness of [one party's] mode
of use of his land. The process of adjudication
requires recognition of the reciprocal right of each
owner to reasonable use, and a balancing of the
conflicting interests. The utility of [one party's]
conduct must be weighed against the quantum of harm
to the [other]. The question is not simply whether a
person is annoyed or disturbed, but whether the
annoyance or disturbance arises from an unreasonable
use of the neighbor's land or operation of his business.
[Id. at 448–49 (internal citations omitted).]
Though it is not controlling, we appreciate the guidance offered by the
A-0200-22
14
Supreme Court of Vermont in Jones v. Hart "that a sustained and intentional
campaign to annoy a neighbor can amount to a private nuisance." 261 A.3d
1126, 1140 (Vt. 2021). "Although such campaigns primarily involve only
discomfort and annoyance—and therefore cause relatively little harm, as
compared to other categories of interferences—they qualify as a private nuisance
because the harassment and annoyance is repeated over a prolonged period and
the activity causing the interference has no utility." Ibid.Here, the trial judge began with a painstaking recitation of the facts,
detailing the lengthy, contentious relationship between the parties. She found,
not only that the actions plaintiffs took were an intentional and unreasonable
invasion of defendants' private use and enjoyment of the driveway on the
easement, but also that plaintiffs "have done everything in their power to make
life difficult for . . . defendants." In particular, the judge found plaintiffs
installed the cameras to monitor the easement because,
as [plaintiff-husband] himself indicated, he wanted to
know who was coming and going so he could report
excessive speeds. He wanted to call the United States
Post Office, UPS, FedEx, and perhaps anybody else to
complain[]. He actually, indeed, started making a log
of when they were there, and how fast he believed
they were going.
A-0200-22
15
The judge mentioned "how [defendants] felt and feel about being subjected to
the surveillance" and the fact that defendants have "stopped talking, and told
their children not to talk[,] while walking up and back the driveway." Judge
Goodzeit said it was "very telling" and "unfathomable" that defendants felt
such discomfort traversing the one means of reaching their home. Moreover,
the trial judge stated, it was "inappropriate" that defendants' "invitees, delivery
people, have been stopped" and that "one of the [delivery] services won't come
down the driveway." Finally, the trial judge found that the speed detector had
been recently installed "for the same exact reasons."
Based on these findings, the trial court then held that plaintiffs "have
gone beyond their rights with respect to the ground of the easement."
"[P]utting surveillance cameras for [their] own gratification, and whatever
underlying complaints they intend to file, is inappropriate, and the [c]ourt
finds[,] rises to the level of nuisance."
In so finding, Judge Goodzeit emphasized the fact that plaintiffs' issue
with allegedly excessive speeds on the easement is based on "their personal
belief[, and] . . . it is not supported by any law." Plaintiffs have not
established that anybody has driven in excessive speed
according to any standard. [They have] had no expert
provide a standard. [They have] provided no laws or
ordinances that apply to this driveway. It is just their
A-0200-22
16
subjective desire to keep people at under [ten] miles
an hour, and [that is] not enough.
Plaintiffs' actions to enforce a subjective speed limit were legally
unreasonable, as there is no legal support for their opinion that "driving on the
easement access driveway should be limited to a speed of [ten] miles per
hour." As a result, the judge found "that the surveillance and the speed
detectors are intimidating to [defendants] and their guests and invitees, and
[plaintiffs] have no legal justification for same."
The determination that plaintiffs' cameras and speed detector constitute a
private nuisance to defendants, infringing on defendants' reasonable use and
enjoyment of the driveway on the easement, is well within the judge's
discretion. Her decision did not "rest[] on an impermissible basis, consider[]
irrelevant or inappropriate factors, fail[] to consider controlling legal
principles or ma[k]e findings inconsistent with or unsupported by competent
evidence." See Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 434 (App. Div. 2015).
The trial court judge's decision rested on the totality of the circumstances, as is
appropriate for considering a private nuisance claim. See Sans II, 29 N.J. at
450. The trial judge considered only appropriate factors and controlling legal
principles, ignoring extraneous interactions between the parties that were not
relevant to the use of the easement and referring to controlling case law,
A-0200-22
17
including Ross v. Lowitz, 222 N.J. 494 (2015), and Sans II, 29 N.J. 438(1959). Finally, every factual finding the judge made was derived directly
from party testimony offered during the three-day bench trial.
Plaintiffs argue the cameras and speed detector at issue should be
permitted to remain in place, because they "do not interfere with [d]efendants'
exercise of their exclusive rights and responsibilities under the [a]ccess
[e]asement [a]greement, namely, the right to travel the easement for the
purpose of ingress to and egress from their property to the public street . . . ."
Plaintiffs derive this non-interference argument from the laws that govern
easements, under which the "owner of the burdened property retains the right
to make all uses of the land that do not unreasonably interfere with the
easement holder's exercise of the rights granted by the easement," citing
Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.2 cmt. d and § 4.9 (Am. L.
Inst. 2000). Plaintiffs also emphasize that "the [a]greement does not prohibit
any form of monitoring of the easement by the fee simple owner of the lands."
The judge found that, by purchasing land encumbered by an easement,
plaintiffs gave up the right to have absolute control over activities on the
property included in the easement, "absent some proof of inappropriate
behavior, which they have not provided." The judge held that, because
A-0200-22
18
plaintiffs had not "established that the vehicles are in any way driving . . . at
excessive speeds, or in other dangerous ways," taking steps to monitor or
modulate the travel speed on the easement "is not within the rights that are
granted by the express easement." Therefore, because the surveillance of the
easement "is not within the rights that are granted by the express easement,"
plaintiffs "have no legal justification" for monitoring the driveway with
cameras and a speed detector.
"An easement is an interest in land owned by another." Tewksbury Twp.
v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., 159 N.J. Super 44, 49 (App. Div. 1978),
aff'd, 79 N.J. 398 (1979). An owner of the underlying land may not, "without
the consent of the easement holder, unreasonably interfere with the latter's
rights or change the character of the easement so as to make the use thereof
significantly more difficult or burdensome." Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. Blair
Holding Co., 42 N.J. 591, 604 (1964). On the other hand, with regard to the
easement holder, "there is, arising out of every easement, an implied right to
do what is reasonably necessary for its complete enjoyment, that right to be
exercised, however, in such reasonable manner as to avoid unnecessary
increases in the burden upon the landowner." Ibid.A-0200-22
19
Looking to the easement agreement itself, it grants to defendants, as
successors in the estate from the original Grantees:
1. [A]n exclusive access easement over that portion of
the Property [at 14 Coddington Lane] . . . (the
"Easement Area") . . . , which includes the Driveway,
only for the purpose of providing ingress and egress
from Coddington Lane to [16 Coddington Lane].
2. The easement created hereby shall be subject to the
following:
(a) Existing rights and easements, including, but not
limited to, those for access, drainage, utilities, water
and sewer mains, pipelines and telephone lines located
in the Easement Area.
Importantly, under Tide-Water Pipe Co., the scope of rights held by the
servient estate is not only defined by those reserved in the easement
agreement, but the scope is also limited by the extent of rights held by the
dominant estate. See 42 N.J. at 604. Under the terms of the easement
agreement, any actions by plaintiffs that unreasonably interfere with
defendants' use of the driveway for "ingress and egress from Coddington Lane
to [16 Coddington Lane]" exceed plaintiffs' rights. The law of easemen ts and
the terms of the easement agreement do not extend the rights of plaintiffs to
include perpetual monitoring of the easement when such monitoring interferes
with defendants' use of the driveway, as the trial judge found here.
A-0200-22
20
We stress that the trial court judge did not hold—nor do we—that
plaintiffs have been divested of all rights to address activity that takes place on
the easement. Instead, the trial court judge undertook a delicate and nuanced
balance and carefully outlined that plaintiffs' ability to interfere with
defendants' exclusive use of the easement—as provided for in the access
easement agreement—is limited to only instances of activity that are legally
established as inappropriate. Plaintiffs may not impose their opinions of
propriety on others, even if they retain rights to the land included in the
easement. Our ruling does not infringe on plaintiffs' rights to the easement;
instead, it addresses the "reciprocal right of each owner to reasonable use, and
a balancing of the conflicting interests," as is required under the laws
controlling easements. See Sans II, 29 N.J. at 449.
We are not persuaded by plaintiffs' argument that, because the cameras
and speed detector are not physically located on the easement and do not have
a view of defendants' residence and "none of the cameras emit noise, exhibit
flashing light, or move in such a way as would distract motorists traveling on
the easement," then "the cameras do not interfere with [defendants'] exercise of
their exclusive rights and responsibilities under the [a]ccess [e]asement
[a]greement."
A-0200-22
21
The trial court judge found measurable impacts on defendants from
plaintiffs' monitoring of the easement with cameras and a speed detector. The
trial judge also found plaintiffs' surveillance of the easement inappropriate in
that it interfered with the willingness of delivery service drivers to travel up
defendants' driveway to make deliveries. Because plaintiffs' surveillance made
defendants and their invitees reluctant to fully utilize the driveway as they
would if the surveillance was not occurring, the trial court judge found that
plaintiffs' surveillance of the easement "unreasonably interferes with the use
and enjoyment [by] the [defendants]."
When we determine whether a nuisance exists, "[t]he pertinent inquiry is
whether [a] defendant's activities materially and unreasonably interfere with
[a] plaintiff['s] comforts or existence, 'not according to exceptionally refined,
uncommon, or luxurious habits of living, but according to the simple tastes and
unaffected notions generally prevailing among plain people.'" Sans v. Ramsey
Golf & Country Club, Inc. (Sans I), 50 N.J. Super. 127, 134–35 (App. Div.
1958), aff'd, 29 N.J. 438 (1959) (quoting Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 104
N.E. 371, 373 (Mass. 1914)). A judge will find that a party's activity
unreasonably interferes with another party's use and enjoyment of their
property when the "utility of the [offending party's] conduct" is outweighed by
A-0200-22
22
the "quantum of harm to the [other party]." See Rose v. Chaikin, 187 N.J.
Super. 210, 216 (Ch. Div. 1982) (citing Sans II, 29 N.J. at 449). Specifically,
in Rose v. Chaikin, a Chancery Division judge emphasized that one's "ability
to look to one's home as a refuge from the noise and stress associated with the
outside world is a right to be jealously guarded." 187 N.J. Super. at 219. The
Rose court found that, where "the benefits are relatively small and the
irritation is substantial," a private nuisance exists. Ibid.Similarly, in Sans II, our Supreme Court determined that the third tee of
a golf course created a nuisance for a family living nearby, relying in part on
the effect on that family of the almost constant presence of golfers outside
their backyard. 29 N.J. at 445-50. To be sure, the Court also considered the
physical threat that flying golf balls posed to the children of the family, but a
large portion of the Court's opinion addressed the effects of the near-constant
presence of golfers on the family's expectations of a "comfortable life in [their]
home and the normal use of their property." Id. at 449. The Court noted that
members of the family "have a consciousness that everything they say in or
around the house can be heard out on the path and so they are 'under a constant
strain and constant tension.' They 'never feel relaxed or free at home.'" Id. at
445. The Court further determined that "an even more serious objection
A-0200-22
23
involves plaintiffs' children," in that they were forced to be quiet in their own
backyard and their friends would not come over to play, due to their backyard's
proximity to an active golf tee and the golfers' requirement for absolute quiet
and stillness as they addressed the ball. Id. at 446-47. After balancing the
reasonable preference of the golf course owner to maintain the tee placement
to offer a desirable par 4 water-hole against the reasonable expectation of the
family to enjoy their home as a restful haven, the Court then found that the
family's "interests are paramount and demand reasonable protection." Id. at
450.
For a party to be liable for a private nuisance, that party's conduct must
be the "legal cause of an invasion of another's interest in the private use and
enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either (a) intentional and unreasonabl e,
or (b) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling
liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous
conditions or activities." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822; see also Ross,
222 N.J. at 505-06. Under this framework, the "number of ways in which the
manner of use of one's property can become so offensive to others as to
warrant judicial relief, although not unlawful [p]er se, is manifold." Sans I, 50
N.J. Super. at 133. A party's activity unreasonably interferes with another
A-0200-22
24
party's use and enjoyment of their property when the "utility of the [offending
party's] conduct" is outweighed by the "quantum of harm to the [other party]."
See Rose, 187 N.J. Super. at 216 (citing Sans II, 29 N.J. at 449).
Under the facts of this case, surveilling the easement with infrared
cameras and a speed detector twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week,
serves no utility. The trial judge found the surveillance was for plaintiffs'
"own gratification" and was not based on any legally cognizable complaint, as
"plaintiffs have not established their right to monitor the speed" on the
easement. When weighed against its tangible effects on defendants—that is,
reluctance on the part of themselves and their invitees to fully utilize their
driveway due to intimidation—the balance of the equities clearly favors
defendants, such that plaintiffs' conduct can be deemed unreasonable as a
matter of law.
Plaintiffs argue defendants have no right to expect privacy in the
easement and, therefore, "could not establish a prima facie case for invasion of
privacy." Not only is a prima facie case for invasion of privacy not necessary
to sustain a nuisance claim, but also defendants never relied on a claim of a
right to privacy in advancing their nuisance claim.
We also note the court's imposition of a remedy was nuanced, measured,
A-0200-22
25
and not overbroad. We review an equitable remedy for an abuse of discretion,
determining "whether the court properly exercised its discretion in fashioning
the appropriate equitable remedy." Todaro, 392 N.J. Super. at 456. In a
nuisance claim, "any relief granted must result from a reasonable
accommodation of [the conflicting] equities to each other in the light of" the
totality of the circumstances. Sans II, 29 N.J. at 450. The relief granted here
did just that.
Finally, "[t]he law does not concern itself with trifles, or seek to remedy
all the petty annoyances of everyday life in a civilized community . . . ." W.
Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 88 (5th ed.
1984). As explained in the Restatement (Second) of Torts,
Life in organized society and especially in populous
communities involves an unavoidable clash of
individual interests. Practically all human activities[,]
unless carried on in a wilderness[,] interfere to some
extent with others or involve some risk of
interference, and these interferences range from mere
trifling annoyances to serious harms. It is an obvious
truth that each individual in a community must put up
with a certain amount of annoyance, inconvenience[,]
and interference and must take a certain amount of
risk in order that all may get on together. The very
existence of organized society depends upon the
principle of "give and take, live and let live," and
therefore the law of torts does not attempt to impose
liability or shift the loss in every case in which one
person's conduct has some detrimental effect on
A-0200-22
26
another. Liability for damages is imposed in those
cases in which the harm or risk to one is greater than
[they] ought to be required to bear under the
circumstances.
[§ 822 cmt. g (Am. L. Inst. 1979).]
Any remaining arguments raised by plaintiffs are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0200-22
27