Title: Parker v. Reaves
Citation: 505 So. 2d 323
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 1987

505 So. 2d 323 (1987)
Samuel L. PARKER and Annie Parker
v.
James REAVES, et al.
85-1060.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 20, 1987.
Margaret L. Fleming and Barry N. McCrary, Talladega, for appellants.
Ralph Gaines, Robert B. Barnett, Jr. and Ralph D. Gaines III of Gaines, Gaines &amp; Barnett, Talladega, for appellees.
HOUSTON, Justice.
This is a nuisance case. The plaintiffs, James Reaves, Sharon Reaves, Pearce Curtis, Vernette Curtis, John Durham, and Annie Durham, are homeowners in Talladega County. The defendants, Samuel Parker and Anna Parker, are their neighbors. The plaintiffs brought this action in the Circuit Court of Talladega County, seeking to enjoin the defendants from keeping a number of German shepherd dogs. The trial court, after hearing ore tenus evidence, found in favor of the plaintiffs and granted the injunction. We affirm.
The trial court's judgment, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
The defendants primarily contend that the trial court erred in finding that their property was subject to subdivision restrictions which prohibited them from keeping the dogs. (See paragraph "1." of the trial *325 court's judgment.) They argue that the trial court based its judgment upon that erroneous finding and, therefore, that the judgment must be reversed. We disagree.
In the complaint the plaintiffs alleged that the noises and odors emanating from the defendants' dogs were depriving them of the use and enjoyment of their property. They sought an injunction to abate that nuisance. The plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants were in violation of any subdivision restrictions. The trial court makes it very clear in the judgment that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction because they had proven the allegations contained in the complaint. It is clear to us that the trial court based its judgment upon its finding that the defendants' dogs were a nuisance; therefore, even assuming that the trial court erred in finding that the defendants' property was subject to subdivision restrictions, that error would not require a reversal of the judgment.
The trial court's findings in this case are favored with the usual presumption of correctness and we will not disturb them unless they are plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust. This presumption of correctness is strengthened by the fact that the trial court made a personal inspection of the premises. Fowler v. Fayco, Inc., 290 Ala. 237, 275 So. 2d 665 (1973).
Based upon our review of the record, the trial court's findings with respect to the noises and odors emanating from the defendants' dogs, as well as those with respect to the potential threat to the children of the neighborhood, are supported by the evidence. A nuisance was established under Baldwin v. McClendon, 292 Ala. 43, 288 So. 2d 761 (1974).
The defendants also contend that the plaintiffs' action was barred under the doctrine of laches; however, after reviewing the record, it appears to us that this affirmative defense was never raised in the trial court. The general rule is that a defense not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Seier v. Peek, 456 So. 2d 1079 (Ala.1984). Therefore, we decline to consider whether the plaintiffs' action was barred under the doctrine of laches.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.