P and D are the direct descendants of Henry. Henry devised a tract of land known as Forest Place to P. Henry left an adjoining tract of land known as the Old Heirs Place to D. The designated boundary line between the two tracts was an old creek. A public road was built between the two tracts and was later paved by the Highway Department. While the road runs along the old creek bed, it does not exactly follow the boundary line. At some point, the boundary line runs on both sides of the public road. D owns a small strip of land between the road and land owned by P. This small strip runs in front of P's home, built over 50 years prior to the institution of this suit, and the home of Jerry O'Cain, which was placed on the property around 1986. For over forty years, there was a driveway crossing the small strip of land to the Harold O'Cain home. The master ruled that this driveway should remain open, as a prescriptive easement had been established. This ruling has not been appealed. In 1986, Jerry O'Cain, with the permission of his father, P, placed a mobile home on the property below his father's home, making significant improvements. This included underpinning and bricking around the mobile home and the addition of decks. He further had a driveway built across the narrow strip of land leading to his home. This driveway is referred to as the seven-year driveway. In addition to approximately $35,000 spent on the trailer, Jerry O'Cain testified he spent between $20,000 and $25,000 in improvements. Jerry understood his father had obtained permission from D to build the driveway over the strip. D denied giving anyone permission. The master found, and the record shows, that at no time during the construction of the driveway did the D object to it, although they were present and aware of the work being done on the driveway, as well as the other improvements to Jerry O'Cain's home. Prior to his death in 1991, P leased a portion of his land on the lower end, next to the canal, to members of D's family, for the purpose of raising hogs. Subsequent to P's death, the children had a master plat and individual plats prepared in order to divide the property. A dispute between the P family and the D family arose after the property was surveyed for the purpose of dividing the P property. In March 1994, D erected a fence along the property line separating the small strip of land from the P property, thereby blocking both driveways and cutting off access to the P property. Subsequent to the filing of suit by the P, the D family placed their hogs within the strip of land running directly in front of both the P and Jerry O'Cain residences. Jerry asserted the hogs were placed in front of his property out of malice. He testified that the D family had further made his property unsightly by placing cans and five-gallon buckets on the posts of the fence they erected and the back of a toilet tank on the top of a trailer pole in front of his property. He stated that the hogs, the cans, and the toilet tank devalued his property, making it virtually impossible to sell, and that the hogs created odor and attracted more flies than when the hogs were further down on the side of his house. Jerry admitted that hogs had been raised in that area in the past, but stated that D had ceased putting hogs in the knoll when he put his home on the property, and had possibly stopped putting the hogs there as early as around 1978 or 1979. The master found that P did not obtain permission to build the seven-year driveway. However, he found the D was equitably estopped from denying P use of the driveway. The master further found the hogging operations were ongoing on this property for years, and the only change was that the D let the hogs start roaming in front of Jerry's house. He found that the smell and odor of the hogs and the flies they attracted were no worse now in that area than they were in the past, and the hogs in the front of the house only adversely affected the aesthetics of the home. He therefore concluded the hogs in front of the house did not constitute a nuisance. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.