Opinion ID: 2030169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existence of a Nuisance.

Text: Iowa has statutory nuisance provisions that are supplemented by the common law of nuisance. See Perkins v. Madison County Livestock & Fair Ass'n, 613 N.W.2d 264, 271 (Iowa 2000). Under the Iowa Code and under common law, the use of property or structures in such a manner as to unreasonably interfere with another's reasonable use and enjoyment of his property or in such a manner as to injure another's health is a nuisance. See id.; Iowa Code §§ 657.1, .2 (2003). We apply the following rules and analysis in determining whether one's use of his property constitutes a nuisance: Whether a lawful business is a nuisance depends on the reasonableness of conducting the business in the manner, at the place, and under the circumstances in question. Thus the existence of a nuisance does not depend on the intention of the party who created it. Rather, it depends on the following three factors: priority of location, the nature of the neighborhood, and the wrong complained of.... A fact finder uses the normal person standard to determine whether a nuisance involving personal discomfort or annoyance is significant enough to constitute a nuisance. The normal-person standard is an objective standard.... ... If normal persons living in the community would regard the invasion in question as definitely offensive, seriously annoying or intolerable, then the invasion is significant. Weinhold, 555 N.W.2d at 459 (citation omitted). The defendants argue that although the trial court found the defendants had priority of location, it gave insufficient consideration to that fact. After reviewing the record, we disagree that the defendants had priority of location as that term is used in a nuisance analysis. It is true the defendants' property was being used for grain drying and storage prior to any of the plaintiffs acquiring an interest in their property with the exception of Dorothy Miller. But priority of location refers not to who lived on or owned their property first, but whether the complaining party moved to the nuisance.  Perkins, 613 N.W.2d at 271. Thus, the relevant point in time at which to examine priority of location is just prior to the commencement of the nuisance-producing activities. See id. at 271-72 (examining whether plaintiffs acquired their property before defendant began using fairgrounds for races, not whether plaintiffs owned their property before defendant established fairgrounds). Here, the plaintiffs claimed the grain debris from the defendants' property did not interfere with the use and enjoyment of their property until the emissions began to increase after 1998. The trial court found there was no unreasonable interference until 2001. The evidence showed these dates coincided with increased storage capacity at the site and a corresponding increase in the amounts of grain being loaded and unloaded at that location. There was no evidence the grain storage and drying activities bothered neighboring properties prior to the late 1990s. By that time, all of the plaintiffs had moved into their homes. Therefore, the plaintiffs, not the defendants, had priority of location. Id. at 272 (holding use of the fairgrounds that is claimed to constitute a nuisance did not begin until after the plaintiffs were already on their properties, so plaintiffs have priority of location); see Higgins v. Decorah Produce Co., 214 Iowa 276, 282, 242 N.W. 109, 112 (1932) (holding complainant, who acquired property adjacent to poultry plant that was subsequently enlarged to an extent that the increased odors and noise constituted a nuisance, was not estopped from maintaining nuisance action). Even though the trial court erred in deciding the defendants had priority of location, that error does not help the defendants. The plaintiffs' priority of location is a circumstance that weighs heavily in the plaintiffs' favor. Weinhold, 555 N.W.2d at 459-60; Bates, 261 Iowa at 704, 154 N.W.2d at 858. Thus, contrary to the defendants' contention that the priority-of-location factor precludes the existence of an actionable nuisance, this factor supports the trial court's decision. The defendants also contend the trial court's nuisance finding cannot stand in view of the court's determination that the area in question was commercial in nature. But that determination does not preclude the finding of a nuisance. See Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., 684 N.W.2d 168, 180 (Iowa 2004) (finding evidence sufficient to support finding of nuisance even though defendant's confinement operation was a customary enterprise in the neighborhood); Bates, 261 Iowa at 704, 154 N.W.2d at 858 (affirming finding of nuisance notwithstanding commercial character of neighborhood). It is only one factor for the court to consider. See Weinhold, 555 N.W.2d at 459. Nor does the existence of similar businesses in the area preclude a finding that the defendants' establishment was a nuisance given the differing testimony on whether the other grain operations in town created the complained of emissions. See Bates, 261 Iowa at 704, 154 N.W.2d at 858 (stating evidence showed other commercial enterprises in the area created no excessive noise or dust and the noise and dust complained of by plaintiffs . . . came from defendant's plant). Although the testimony was conflicting, there was evidence the material coming from the defendants' property significantly increased when the defendants enlarged their grain-storing capacity and increased their grain activities on the property. There was also credible testimony that the emissions during harvest season were so pervasive that they blanketed not only the plaintiffs' vehicles and personal property located outside their residences, but also filtered into the interior of the plaintiffs' homes. These deposits, according to the plaintiffs, required constant house cleaning and were so significant that the plaintiffs used brooms and shovels to remove the material from their yards and driveways. The plaintiffs also testified they could not work outside at times because there was so much particulate matter in the air that they could not breathe. Although the defendants introduced the testimony of witnesses who said the emissions from the defendants' grain site were not that bothersome, it was for the trial court to determine which testimony was most credible. See Riter v. Keokuk Electro-Metals Co., 248 Iowa 710, 722, 82 N.W.2d 151, 158 (1957). Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say the trial court erred in determining a person of normal sensibilities would be disturbed and substantially annoyed by the invasion of dust, corn chaff and beeswings from the defendants' operations during harvest season. In addition, evidence of the noise caused by vehicles hauling grain and by the grain dryer and of the effect of this noise on the plaintiffs provides further record support for the trial court's determination the defendants' activities caused significant personal annoyance to the plaintiffs. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding of a nuisance, we are bound by that finding on appeal.