Blanks v. Rawson
Court
of Appeals of
296
S.C. 110, 370 S.E.2d 890.
Johnson,
pp. 765-768
Facts: Rawson bought a lot in a
new subdivision. He wanted to build a
house very much like his current house, including a basketball court and a dog
pen. The developer of the subdivision
declared certain restrictions on all the lots in the subdivision, but reserved
the right to change the restrictions at will.
Rawson got permission from the developer to vary from the
restrictions. The Blanks moved in next
door and built their own house. They objected
to the noise from the basketball court and the noise and smell from the dog
pen. They sued, claiming that Rawson
violated the neighborhood restrictions.
The trial court found that all of these things were nuisances, except
the fence, which they held was simply “wrong”.
Issue: Did any of these annoyances
constitute a nuisance?
Rule: Private nuisance is
determined on a case-by-case basis, and not every annoyance or disturbance is a
nuisance. Only when someone’s legal
rights have been violated will a nuisance be found.
Analysis: First, the court finds that
there has been no violation of the neighborhood restrictions because the
developer specifically approved all of Rawson’s deviations from the
restrictions. The court finds that the
basketball goal is not a nuisance because it appears to be more of an
anticipatory nuisance than an actual nuisance.
There has never been damage from the ball bouncing into the Blanks’s
yard. The court finds that the dog pen is a nuisance, relying on the findings
of the trial judge in light of conflicting evidence. Finally, the court finds that the fence is
not a nuisance, but rather could be the best solution to the problem. The court says that the Blanks did not have a
prescriptive easement to view the lake.
The fence also doesn’t violate any restriction because Rawson got
permission to put it there.
Conclusion: The trial court is affirmed
as far as the dog pen goes, but is reversed as to the fence and the basketball
court.