JOSEPH KNECHT AND LISA KNECHT, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY KATZ, JR., AND HEDRINA KATZ, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed an order requiring removal of a barking dog, holding that the trial court must first allow the owners an opportunity to cure the nuisance by keeping the dog indoors before ordering its removal.
Before a dog owner can be judicially required to remove their dog from their premises, they must first be given an opportunity to cure the barking nuisance through less restrictive means such as keeping the dog indoors.
[1] A trial court must allow a dog owner an opportunity to abate a barking nuisance through less restrictive means, such as keeping the dog indoors, before ordering the dog's…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees sought an injunction against appellants' Great Pyrenees for constant barking while kept outside the home, requesting the dog be enjoined fro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nuisance Law cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
This is literally a barking dog case. Ap-pellees sought injunctive relieve in regard to appellants’ Great Pyrenees’ constant barking while it was permitted to remain outside appellants’ home. Appellees’ request was to enjoin appellants from maintaining the dog on their property “in such manner as to create noise sufficient to impair Plaintiffs’ peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property.” Instead, the trial court gave appellants 30 days to remove the dog from their premises.
We agree with appellants that the court went too far. In addition, it granted a remedy not sought by appellees. Appellees never complained that the dog disturbed them when it was within appellants’ home. Some barking must be expected from dogs. Before appellants can be judicially required to remove their dog from their premises, they should be given the opportunity to cure the problem which disturbed appel-lees. The dog should not be permitted to remain outdoors unattended so that continuous barking might disturb the neighbors. Howeyer, if keeping the dog indoors or bringing the dog indoors when it starts barking will cure the problem, the injunction should go no further. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to amend the injunction in accordance with this opinion.
COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.