JORGE REYES
v.
JORGE COSCULLUELA
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.
Jorge Reyes voluntarily dismissed his nuisance lawsuit against neighbor Jorge Cosculluela on the eve of trial, after which the trial court awarded attorney's fees as a sanction under Florida Statute section 57.105(1). The appellate court reversed, holding that Reyes had asserted a viable nuisance claim based on noise from a batting cage, and that voluntary dismissal does not warrant fee sanctions.
The court reversed the attorney's fees award, concluding that Reyes asserted a viable nuisance claim regarding noise interference from the batting cage. The court held that a voluntary dismissal decision has no bearing on the merits of the underlying claim and therefore does not warrant fee sanctions under section 57.105(1).
[1] Noise emanating from a lawful use of property, including operation of a batting cage, may constitute a private nuisance when it materially interferes with a neighbor's us…
[2] An award of attorney's fees as a sanction under section 57.105(1) is not warranted when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a claim that is viable on the merits, regardless…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[N]oise can be a nuisance.”
City of Jacksonville v. Schumann, establishing that noise claims are cognizable under Florida law
Jorge Reyes sued his neighbor Jorge Cosculluela alleging that incessant noise emanating from a batting cage on the neighboring property interfered wit…
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
MILLER, J.
After appellant, Jorge Reyes, voluntarily dismissed his nuisance lawsuit against his neighbor, appellee, Jorge Cosculluela, on the proverbial eve of trial, the trial court awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2021). Having carefully surveyed the relevant judicial landscape, we conclude Reyes asserted a viable claim, albeit a weak one, that the incessant noise emanating from a batting cage on the neighboring property sufficiently interfered with the comfort, repose, and enjoyment of his home so as to constitute a nuisance under the common law. Further observing the decision to end litigation has no bearing on the merits, we find the award of fees was unwarranted. See City of Jacksonville
v. Schumann, 199 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) (“[N]oise can be a
nuisance.”); see also Clark v. Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park Prop.
Owners Ass’n, Inc., 226 So. 3d 276, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (upholding an injunction based on nuisance claims of noise from commercial vehicles);
Lake Hamilton Lakeshore Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Neidlinger, 182 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (finding noise from lawful use of airboats can constitute a nuisance); Erwin v. Alvarez, 752 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (finding noise from lawful ownership of chickens and roosters can constitute a nuisance); Rae v. Flynn, 690 So. 2d 1341, 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding noise from barking dogs can rise to the level of a nuisance);
Exxon Corp., U.S.A. v. Dunn, 474 So. 2d 1269, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (finding noise, vibrations, and emissions from the operation of an industrial plant constituted a nuisance); Roebuck v. Sills, 306 So. 3d 374, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (finding a neighbor’s noisy pool equipment and lighting constituted a nuisance); Saadeh v. Stanton Rowing Found. Inc., 912 So. 2d 28, 29, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (finding noise and traffic congestion from use of property as a recreational rowing facility can constitute a nuisance);
McClosky v. Martin, 56 So. 2d 916, 918 (Fla. 1951) (“An adjoining property owner cannot maintain a . . . nuisance on his property which is injurious to the . . . property rights of an adjacent landowner and not be answerable [for it].”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McClosky v. Martin, 56 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1951)
- City OF Jacksonville v. George Schumann et ux., 199 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Anwar Saadeh and Mary Anne Saadeh v. Stanton Rowing Found., Inc., 912 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Clark v. Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 226 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Roebuck v. Sills, 306 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
- Exxon Corp. v. Dunn, 474 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- RAE v. John F. Flynn, M.D., 690 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Jackson v. State, 752 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- THE Lake Hamilton Lakeshore Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Neidlinger, 182 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)