Case Title: Braverman v. Eicher

Citation: 238 N.W.2d 331

Docket Number: 2-56858

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1976-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
238 N.W.2d 331 (1976) A. Kent BRAVERMAN, Appellant, v. Frank EICHER et al., Appellees. No. 2-56858. Supreme Court of Iowa. January 21, 1976. *333 Cahill, Lovelace & Poula, Iowa City, for appellant. Meardon, Sueppel, Downer & Hayes, Iowa City, for appellees. Heard by MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REES and McCORMICK, JJ. RAWLINGS, Justice. Plaintiff (Braverman) appeals from decree entered in his action against adjoining landowners (Seville) for relief from alleged nuisance and damages. We affirm as modified. The two parcels of land here involved are located in Iowa City. The Seville property (dominant estate) is at the crest of a hill which slopes downward to the north where it adjoins the Braverman tract (servient estate). In 1964, plaintiff started construction of a six structure apartment complex on the aforesaid northerly tract. He attendantly cut into and graded the southerly irregular embankment alongside the involved lot line. In 1965, defendant Seville commenced development of a six building apartment complex on its land and in so doing filled and graded the northerly portion thereof. Because of said cuts and fills by plaintiff and defendants respectively, the above noted slope became an escarpment. Difficulties developed between the parties hereto, due in large part if not entirely from flowage of water and silt onto the Braverman tract. By reason thereof plaintiff commenced this action. Reduced to outline form, these are the allegations upon which he seeks redress: (1) In 1965 defendants improperly graded and excavated its land, leaving a large bank of dirt near the property line which sloped steeply downward toward plaintiff's property, thereby altering the natural flow of surface waters from the dominant estate. As a consequence, plaintiff alleges use and enjoyment of his land has been harmed by: (a) deposits of inordinate amounts of mud and silt; (b) destruction of vegetation; (c) impairment of habitability; (d) obstruction of natural light, air and quiet enjoyment; (e) costly removal of water and mud from plaintiff's parking lot; (f) erosion of plaintiff's land because of water flowing from a centrally located drainage pipe placed by defendants in the dirt embankment; (g) casting of trees, stumps, shrubs, and logs onto plaintiff's land; (h) depreciation in value of plaintiff's property. Therefore, plaintiff asks $75,000 damages and an order requiring defendants to "do that which is found necessary and adequate *334 to prevent future injury" to plaintiff's property. (2) Defendants "maliciously and willfully" altered the "natural lay of the land" and the "natural flow of surface waters" thereon. For this plaintiff seeks $70,000 actual and $100,000 punitive damages. (3) Defendants agreed to erect a retaining wall on the property line but failed to do so. Thereupon plaintiff prays $40,000 damages and equitable relief with regard to defendants' breach of such alleged agreement. Defendants deny these allegations and further raise three affirmative defenses. First, prior to any construction or excavation by defendants this plaintiff made numerous "cuts" in the natural bank of land along the property line, thereby removing a substantial portion of the lateral support to which defendants' dominant estate was entitled. Second, plaintiff had agreed to construct a retaining wall along the property line. Third, in 1965 plaintiff agreed defendants could collect and discharge water through a drainage pipe onto plaintiff's land. By counterclaim defendants ask that plaintiff be ordered to construct the retaining wall. In November 1973, trial court's decree was entered. Briefly, the court found Braverman had proved total damages of only $1,432.90, the amount expended by him for removal of silt from his parking lot on several occasions and construction of a drainage pipe extension in order to dispose of water flowing from defendants' land. Based on a finding that the parties hereto were at fault in effecting excavations and fills on their respective tracts, trial court awarded plaintiff half the above sum or $716.45 actual damages. All other relief sought by plaintiff was denied, as was defendants' counterclaim. The court also determined neither party hereto had established existence of an enforceable agreement by the other to construct a retaining wall. Finding, however, they had agreed a retaining wall should be built, trial court ordered it be constructed along the full length of the east-west property line with the total cost thereof to be shared by the parties: one-third to be paid by plaintiff, two-thirds by defendants. Plaintiff here assigns no less than 18 separate issues in the six divisions of his brief, some of which overlap. Several of these issues relate to matters of fact while others deal with alleged misapplication of the law thereto. Any attempt to specify the issues raised by plaintiff will only serve to unduly extend this opinion. I. The mere fact that plaintiff seeks compensatory redress in addition to equitable relief does not, per se, mean this case stands in law. See Kriener v. Turkey Valley Community School Dist., 212 N.W.2d 526, 530 (Iowa 1973); Iowa R.Civ.P. 320. We are persuaded our review is de novo despite trial court's finding to the effect this is essentially an action for damages. See Larsen v. McDonald, 212 N.W.2d 505, 507 (Iowa 1973); First National Bank in Lenox v. Brown, 181 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa 1970). See also Mulford v. City of Iowa Falls, 221 N.W.2d 261, 267 (Iowa 1974); Estate of Thompson v. O'Tool, 175 N.W.2d 598, 599 (Iowa 1970). II. There has been adopted and developed in this jurisdiction what may best be characterized as a modified civil law rule which recognizes a servitude of natural drainage as between adjoining lands. Under this concept a servient estate must accept surface waters which drain thereon from a dominant estate. On the other hand, no right exists to alter the natural system of drainage from a dominant estate in such manner as to substantially increase the servient estate burden. See Ditch v. Hess, 212 N.W.2d 442, 448 (Iowa 1973); Rosendahl Levy v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 171 N.W.2d 530, 536-537 (Iowa 1969); Board of Supervisors v. Board, 214 *335 Iowa 655, 668-671, 241 N.W. 14 (1932); Section 465.22, The Code 1962. See generally Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal. 2d 396, 50 Cal. Rptr. 273, 275-282, 412 P.2d 529, 531-538 (1966); 78 Am.Jur.2d, Waters, §§ 119-124; 93 C.J.S. Waters § 114. III. It is also understood the instant action is premised upon an alleged private nuisance. See Larsen v. McDonald, 212 N.W.2d at 508; Prosser, Law of Torts, § 89 at 591 (4th ed. 1971); 58 Am.Jur.2d, Nuisances, § 6; 66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 2. See generally §§ 657.1-657.2, The Code 1975. IV. On the same subject, some difficulty is encountered in determining whether plaintiff's requests that defendants be required to do what "is found necessary and adequate to prevent future injury to plaintiff" and "to prevent dirt from coming down upon the property of plaintiff" constitute prayers for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction. See Iowa Natural Resources Council v. Van Zee, 261 Iowa 1287, 158 N.W.2d 111, 115 (1968); McClintock on Equity, § 14 at 32 (2d ed. 1948); 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 17; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 4-5. In any event, we construe the aforesaid prayers liberally. See Holi-Rest, Inc. v. Treloar, 217 N.W.2d 517, 526-527 (Iowa 1974); Schlotfelt v. Vinton Farmers' Supply Co., 252 Iowa 1102, 1112, 109 N.W.2d 695 (1961). And, as stated in Holden v. Construction Machinery Company, 202 N.W.2d 348, 363-364 (Iowa 1972): See also 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 275; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 182(c); 27 Am. Jur.2d, Equity, § 103; 30A C.J.S. Equity § 599. Furthermore, the grant or denial of injunctive relief, of any nature, unquestionably rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court. See Holden v. Construction Machinery Company, 202 N.W.2d at 360-361 and citations; McClintock on Equity, § 143 at 381; 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 24; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 14. V. Also involved is the commonly accepted rule with regard to balancing of the equities. This concept is thus aptly stated in McClintock on Equity, § 144 at 383: See also Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Company, 214 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Iowa 1974); Johnson v. Pattison, 185 N.W.2d 790, 797-798 (Iowa 1971); 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 56; Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 601. VI. By five separate assignments plaintiff contests these findings of fact by trial court: Nothing will be gained by a detailed analysis of the foregoing. Our de novo review discloses trial court's findings to the effect plaintiff failed to show destruction of or detriment to the use and enjoyment of his property, as above specified, are not entirely supported by the record. It still remains, however, plaintiff presented no evidence upon which an attendant monetary award could be granted. Consequently, this statement in Ferrari v. Meeks, 181 N.W.2d 201, 206 (Iowa 1970) is dispositive: See also Earl v. Clark, 219 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Iowa 1974); Stockdale v. Agrico Chemical Co., Div. of Con. Oil Co., 340 F. Supp. 244, 255 (N.D.Iowa 1972). Plaintiff is not entitled to a reversal on these multiple assignments. VII. The question now posed is whether use of the drainage pipe installed by defendants in the embankment should be abated. Trial court found: We agree. Furthermore, a search of the record fails to reveal any evidence upon which it could be reasonably found installation of said pipe so altered the natural system of drainage as to substantially increase the servient estate burden. See Cundiff v. Kopseiker, 245 Iowa 179, 185, 61 N.W.2d 443 (1953); § 465.22, The Code 1962; cf. Ferrari v. Meeks, 181 N.W.2d at 204. Additionally, an order abating continued use of said drainage pipe would perforce result in a haphazard flow of water over the embankment from the dominant to the servient estate, thereby probably increasing deposits of silt on the latter. Alternatively, defendants could conceivably be required to retain all water on their land and impermissibly discharge same onto some other servient estate. It is self-evident neither such possible option is feasible. VIII. Plaintiff further voices complaint with regard to the monetary award to him of only half the costs attendant upon removal of accumulated silt from his property and construction of a drainage pipe extension for discharge of water flowing from defendants' land. Trial court stated: In substance, the court further found plaintiff had originally cut into the embankment and defendants subsequently effected an earth fill, but neither provided correlative protection to the other. Thereupon, plaintiff was granted judgment against defendants for $716.45, or half the cleanup cost and pipe extension expense incurred by the latter. *337 We are satisfied an apportionment of these costs and expenses is appropriate. Under existent circumstances, however, a judgment for two-thirds thereof or $958.60 should have been entered for plaintiff against defendants. On remand such corrective judgment, with interest as by law provided, shall be entered. On plaintiff's instant complaint we modify. IX. Several of plaintiff's assignments relate to respective duties of the parties to this action regarding lateral and subjacent support. Trial court found: We are satisfied the foregoing is supported by the evidence and applicable governing principles. Looking first to plaintiff's duty in connection with his excavation or cuts into the embankment, we said in Pacific Indemnity Company v. Rathje, 188 N.W.2d 338, 340 (Iowa 1971): Turning next to defendants' responsibility regarding fills and grading on their land, we note this apt statement in 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 27 at 709: In light of the foregoing, it is apparent each party hereto had a correlative duty to the other. It is equally evident (1) these duties were breached and (2) no corrective "agreement" was ever effectuated. Significantly, however, plaintiff and defendants concede a property line retaining wall should be built. In keeping therewith and as a practical solution of the controversy, trial court ordered: And, Plaintiff takes the position his portion of the wall construction cost should be limited to $7875, a 1965 estimate for a stone retaining structure after plaintiff had cut into the natural embankment but before defendants had filled and graded near the property line. At that time, however, defendants' engineer opined a stone wall would not provide enough support, and further negotiations proved fruitless. We cannot accept plaintiff's proposal. In brief, plaintiff invited much of the erosion of which he now complains. Defendants' filling operations ensured the invitation would not go unheeded. In other words, fault is attributable to both plaintiff and the parties defendant. But, there can be no precise mathematical determination as to the degree of each combatant's contribution to this "seven years' war", as aptly described by trial court. Extended discussion is needless. Simply stated, we are persuaded trial court fairly balanced the equities in holding the wall construction cost be shared by plaintiff and defendants in the proportions above set forth. Such disposition is deemed a just *339 solution of the troublesome problem which these parties were unable, or perhaps unwilling, to amicably resolve. Also obviated is any present need for injunctive relief sought by plaintiff as to the dirt embankment. See Ferrari v. Meeks, 181 N.W.2d at 206. Finally on this subject, trial court's retention of jurisdiction to the end that the instantly involved litigation be equitably terminated is appropriate. See Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Cascade Tel. Co., 234 N.W.2d 130, 137 (Iowa 1975); Lovrien v. Fitzgerald, 245 Iowa 1325, 1328, 66 N.W.2d 458 (1954); Donnelly v. Nolan, 235 Iowa 30, 33, 15 N.W.2d 924 (1944); 30 C.J.S. Equity § 67. Plaintiff's instant assignments are devoid of substance. X. Neither is there merit in plaintiff's assertion he is entitled to judgment against defendants for exemplary damages. Nothing in the record would support such an award. Each party to this action has manifested some degree of apathy as to the rights of the other. But there is no adequate showing made upon which to hold malice, actual or legal, is attributable to defendants. See Earl v. Clark, 219 N.W.2d at 491-492, and citations. XI. Other issues here raised by plaintiff have been duly considered and found to afford no basis for a reversal. Costs are taxed one-third to plaintiff, two-thirds to defendants. Affirmed as modified and remanded with instructions.