DAVID A. DAVIS AND IDA DAVIS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM LEVIN AND ELINORE LEVIN, HIS WIFE, 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.
Homeowners appealed a trial court's denial of their request for an injunction against neighboring homeowners' air conditioning system, alleging it constituted a nuisance due to excessive noise. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly found the air conditioning operation was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate a legal right.
The trial court properly concluded that the operation of the air conditioning system did not constitute a nuisance and therefore injunctive relief was not warranted. The appellate court affirmed, finding the chancellor's legal and factual conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and were not erroneous.
“The sole question in an action seeking injunctive relief to abate a nuisance is whether or not the use made of property by the one complained against is reasonable under the circumstances.”
Establishes the primary legal test for determining whether a nuisance exists warranting injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants owned a home adjacent to property owned by the appellees. The appellees operated an air conditioning system on their property that alle…
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
The appellants instituted this action in the trial court to enjoin as an alleged nuisance the operation of an air conditioning system' located in an adjoining home owned by the appellees. The appellants complained that' *352excessive noises emanated from the air conditioning equipment.
The chancellor heard the testimony of the appellants and their witness, an expert on acoustics, and considered certain testimony by deposition, and concluded that the operation of the appellees’ air conditioning equipment did not constitute a nuisance and consequently refused to grant the injunctive relief prayed. This appeal followed.
The appellants basically contend that the noise created by the operation of the air conditioning equipment was such that it deprived the appellants of the use of portions of their house, interrupted their sleep and contributed to the appellant wife’s deteriorating physical condition.
The chancellor found as a conclusion of law and fact that the operation of the air conditioning system did not constitute a nuisance. His legal as well as factual conclusions come to this court with a presumption of correctness and where, as here, his decree is supported by substantial evidence, it is the duty of the appellate court to affirm such decree.
The sole question in an action seeking injunctive relief to abate a nuisance is whether or not the use made of property by the one complained against is reasonable under the circumstances. This question includes also a determination of whether the annoyance and disturbance complained of have resulted in injury to a legal right of the person complaining. Mere disturbance and annoyance as such do not in themselves necessarily give rise to an invasion of a legal right. City of Lakeland v. State, 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470; Beckman v. Marshall, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 552; and see also McClosky v. Martin, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 916 and A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornstein, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 701, 703.
Concluding as we have that the chancellor’s decree is without error, it follows that the same should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…as correct in entertaining the proceedings and determining the issue of fact upon which the question of coverage turned. The findings of fact of a chancellor arrive in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 351; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 706. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate a complete lack of competent, sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact in [*694] order to obtain a reversal of a chancellor’s decree. See: Pe…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Pepper, 168 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183; Weintraub v. Field, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 54; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 541. If the record on appeal supports the action of the trial judge, he should be affirmed. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 351; Bargeon v. Bargeon, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 10; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 477. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge committed error in the entry of the order here under review and, therefore, the same b…
-
Lamb v. Dade Cnty., 159 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…cellor are supported by the evidence and, therefore, same should not be interfered with by an appellate court. See: Morrow v. American Oil Company, 153 Fla. 765, 15 So. 2d 847; Means v. Bateman, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 478; Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 351. His conclusions of law, based upon said findings, have not been demonstrated to have been in error and, therefore, his conclusions are hereby approved. See: Lamson v. Martin, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 117; Rowland v. McCall, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beckman v. Marshall, 85 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1956)
- McClosky v. Martin, 56 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1951)
- A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornstein, 121 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- City of Lakeland v. State ex rel. James Harris, 143 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1940)