Mills v. Kimble

909 N.E.2d 1068 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D are next-door neighbors. P has lived there since March of 2004. D has lived there since 1984. Two months after moving in P began keeping a journal of D's disruptive activities. The journal runs from May 21, 2004, through September 11, 2006, and is eighty-three pages long. On April 25, 2005, P began videotaping D's and his guests' activities without their permission. Due to P's videotaping activities, D claims to have been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of certain portions of his property. On May 8, 2006, P sent D a letter, demanding that D not play loud music, permit loud and/or foul language, set off the house alarm, move his trash to P's property, enter any part of his property for any reason, contact him or his guests, nor tamper with his fence. P demanded that within seven days that D trim certain trees along the fence line and keep the property line clear of any obstructions such as 'cinder blocks, mulch, and growth barriers.' P demanded that D remove his sprinkler system, which P claimed was on his property, and repair a bare area of his yard, which P believed was caused by d's mulch pile. An inspection report by the City of Indianapolis found no violation in the placement of the sprinkler system. the parties agreed to participate in a voluntary mediation session with the Marion County Prosecutor's Office. They reached an agreement that P would trim the trees and that D's music was not to be so loud as to be heard in P's home. P listed his residence for sale and D, accompanied by his son and a friend, toured P's residence with a real estate agent when P was not present. P sued D for nuisance, common law and criminal trespass, and IIED. D filed a counterclaim for invasion of privacy. The trial court granted summary judgment against P with respect to his claims of nuisance, common law and criminal trespass, and IIED, and in favor of D in his counterclaim for intrusion. P appealed.