Opinion ID: 2584803
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The superior court erred when it dismissed Lorenz's nuisance claims.

Text: Lorenz's ninth and tenth counterclaims alleged that Maddox operated a dog boarding business and a drug business from his property and that both of these activities constituted a nuisance. A nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of real property. [45] Lorenz correctly argues that Maddox's briefing never suggests why her nuisance claims should fail on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. A kennel of barking dogs can constitute a nuisance. [46] Maddox's alleged marijuana business might constitute a private nuisance. [47] Maddox argued in his motion to dismiss that the counterclaims were not part of the same transaction or occurrence as his claims. But Maddox based his entire motion on Rule 12(b)(6). As is the case with Lorenz's other permissive counterclaims, the superior court erred when it failed to accept Lorenz's permissive nuisance counterclaim in accordance with Civil Rule 13(b).