Opinion ID: 1244508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Abatement is a Proper Remedy

Text: The sole case cited by Hoffman is Hartung v. County of Milwaukee, 2 Wis.2d 269, 86 N.W.2d 475 (1957), apparently for the proposition that abatement is too harsh a remedy in this case. We disagree. We have previously stated that it is within the province of the trial court to enjoin all business activities which cause a nuisance, even where the result may be termination of the present use of the property. Wellman, 352 N.W.2d at 206. Even though [an] injunction against full business activity will likely cause economic damage, that factor is not controlling. Whether a use of property creating an alleged nuisance is reasonable cannot be gauged solely by the necessities of the users. Id. (citing Johnson v. Drysdale, 66 S.D. 436, 443, 285 N.W. 301, 305 (1939)). Presumably, abatement will cause some economic damage to Hoffman. By Hoffman's own testimony, little income is derived from the trailer court portion of his business activities. Hoffman also operates a farming and livestock feeding operation, as well as Siouxland Feeds on the premises; although the record is not clear, presumably he derives income from those business activities, which are not included in the order of abatement. See Wellman, 352 N.W.2d at 206; Town of Winfred v. Scholl, 477 N.W.2d 262, 264 (S.D.1991) (Henderson, J., concurring) (stating that the defendant has not been, business-wise, destroyed hereby as he still had other property on which to conduct his business). Hoffman further argues that it would be a financial impossibility to install the improvements required to abate the nuisance within sixty (60) days, or within sixty (60) years. Nevertheless, Hoffman has operated the trailer park since 1968, at least twenty-five (25) years. His strategy has been to conduct the trailer park as a low-budget operation, apparently allowing few dollars for investment and improvement in his business so that it can be maintained as a healthy and safe environment for residents. Hoffman was free to make that choice. However, Hoffman is not free to operate a public nuisance. We have considered Hoffman's other arguments and find them totally lacking in merit. The judgment is affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and HENDERSON, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur.