Dobbs v. Wiggins

Citation: Not availableDocket: 5-09-0416 Rel

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; April 30, 2010; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On April 15, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District filed a Rule 23 order regarding the case of Larry Dobbs, Frances Dobbs, Wayne Richard, and Lorena Richard against Donald Wiggins, concerning a private nuisance from dogs kenneled on Wiggins's property. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin Wiggins from keeping dogs or, alternatively, to limit the number to six and to control noise from barking. The Jefferson County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on July 21, 2009, ordering Wiggins to reduce his dogs and manage noise levels. Wiggins appealed, arguing that the nuisance finding was unsupported by evidence, the injunction was unreasonable, and the court improperly admitted audio recordings of barking. 

The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs and Wiggins reside on Triton Lane in rural Jefferson County, with the plaintiffs living adjacent to Wiggins. Evidence presented included testimony from Larry Dobbs, who detailed the worsening noise from Wiggins's dogs since they moved to the area, claiming it disrupted their enjoyment of their property and was constant throughout the day and night, particularly exacerbated during feeding times and when wildlife was present.

Larry previously enjoyed keeping his windows open at home but now keeps them closed due to excessive barking from Wiggins's dogs. He noted that the noise was particularly worse in the summer. After discussing the issue with Wiggins in August 2007, who did not offer to resolve the problem, Larry contacted animal control. While animal control enforced kennel licensing on Wiggins, they did not address the noise complaints. Larry acknowledged a reduction in barking since filing his lawsuit, although the noise remained disruptive, particularly during July 2007, which he identified as the peak of the issue.

During a trial inspection in February 2009, Wiggins had 69 dogs on his property, which barked for about 20 to 30 minutes upon arrival of visitors. Frances, Larry's wife, corroborated his claims, describing the barking as excessive and chronic, occurring often from early morning and disrupting their outdoor activities. She expressed frustration over having to close windows and use noise distractions like a radio or television to cope with the incessant barking, which hindered her enjoyment of gardening and hosting outdoor events. Frances observed no improvement in barking levels since late 2007 and believed the noise negatively impacted their property's value.

Wayne Richard, a neighbor living 200 to 250 yards from the Dobbs' house, testified that he too experienced disturbances due to Wiggins's dogs, which affected his ability to enjoy outdoor activities. He highlighted that the proximity of his home to Wiggins's property made the noise particularly intrusive.

Wayne testified that coyotes howling prompted Wiggins's dogs to bark, leading to a gradual increase in noise since Wiggins purchased his property on Triton Lane about 15 years ago, becoming a significant nuisance by 2007. He described the constant barking, likening it to the sound of thousands of dogs, making outdoor activities impossible without hearing the noise. Wayne had to close his windows, often turning on the television or radio to drown out the barking. He spoke to Wiggins, who expressed a desire to be a good neighbor and mentioned purchasing a device to quiet the dogs, asserting his right to keep them. Wayne indicated he moved to the country for peace, contrasting with Wiggins's intention to raise dogs.

Lori, Wayne’s wife, also testified about the impact of the barking on her outdoor activities, which became overshadowed by the noise. She noted that since Wiggins began accumulating dogs, the noise had escalated, particularly from 2006 onward, disrupting her enjoyment of the outdoors and leading to a reduced frequency of hosting outdoor gatherings. 

Mary McKowen, a longtime neighbor living 2¼ miles away, corroborated the disturbance, reporting that she could hear the dogs barking during visits to the Dobbs property in 2007, particularly when the wind came from the south. Charles Downey, residing one mile north of the Dobbs residence, acknowledged hearing the barking but noted it was less bothersome from his distance. He described the barking at the Dobbs property as louder and potentially annoying, estimating Wiggins had over 100 dogs in 2007. Downey also mentioned that while he helped Wiggins with the dogs, he could occasionally quiet them by shouting.

Downey expressed his reluctance to live near the Dobbses due to constant barking from approximately six dogs, which he could hear from his property. Randy Phillips, a contractor who worked on the Dobbses' remodeling project for about 3½ months in 2007, corroborated Downey's claims, stating that the dogs barked incessantly both inside and outside the Dobbs home. Although Phillips personally disliked confining dogs, he noted that he did not judge others for doing so, and acknowledged that his construction work might have influenced the dogs' barking. Nonetheless, he maintained that the barking was persistent even during quieter times, leading him to conclude he would not want to live there or purchase the property.

Martin Boykin from Jefferson County Animal Control responded to a complaint in January 2008 regarding an aggressive dog owned by the Dobbses. He noted that while some barking was audible during his visit, it was not loud enough to be considered disturbing. Randy Childers, a mail carrier for 17 years in the area, testified that he did not notice any noise from Wiggins's dogs during his deliveries, which lasted about a minute five times a week. Veterinarian Gordon Rhine, who owned multiple dogs, inspected Wiggins's kennels and found them typical and clean, noting that while some barking occurred during his visit, it subsided over time.

Rhine observed that the dogs appeared healthy and happy. Wiggins, with extensive experience in raising and training bird dogs since childhood, had a successful history in field trials, winning his first title in the early 2000s. He owned approximately 60 to 70 dogs when he moved to Triton Lane in Jefferson County, Illinois, in 1995 and built kennels for them. From 2002 to 2008, Wiggins generated $139,295 in income from selling his dogs while also operating a trucking company as his primary source of income. 

Wiggins regularly checked with his neighbor, Larry, about any issues caused by the dogs, who initially reported no problems. However, in August 2007, Larry complained about excessive barking, marking the first complaint in 15 years. In response, Wiggins attempted to reduce noise by finding homes for the loudest dogs, implementing noise-reduction measures such as automatic sprinklers, bark collars, and sound-absorbing hay bales. By the time of the trial, he had significantly fewer problem dogs remaining.

The circuit court found that Wiggins's dogs barked incessantly, constituting a nuisance that interfered with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property, ultimately outweighing the benefits of Wiggins's kennel. The court ordered Wiggins to limit his dogs to six, confine them to a specific area, and take necessary measures to mitigate noise. Wiggins appealed, arguing the court's finding of nuisance was unsupported by the evidence. The appellate court indicated it would review the circuit court's findings under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, deferring to the trial judge's assessments.

A private nuisance is characterized as a substantial invasion of another individual's use and enjoyment of their land, requiring that the invasion be intentional or negligent and unreasonable. The evaluation of whether conduct constitutes a nuisance is based on its impact on a reasonable person. The Illinois Supreme Court emphasizes that a nuisance must be physically offensive to the extent it makes life uncomfortable. Examples of nuisances include noise, smoke, and odors that impair neighboring land use. Determining if an activity is a nuisance is typically a factual question.

In cases to enjoin a private nuisance, courts must weigh the plaintiffs' harm against the benefits of the defendant's land use and its appropriateness for the location. In Woods v. Khan, plaintiffs sought to enjoin a poultry business due to unpleasant odors and flies affecting their rural residence. The court found that the poultry facility, despite being a vital industry, was improperly located near residences and thus constituted a nuisance. The court assessed several factors, including the utility of the business and the suitability of the location, and ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming the significant interference caused by the poultry facility.

In another case involving barking dogs, the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that the noise from the Wiggins property was a substantial invasion of their enjoyment of land, as the barking could be heard inside their homes and disturbed their peace.

Plaintiffs testified about their reduced enjoyment of outdoor activities due to persistent noise from barking dogs, supported by additional testimonies from neighbors and a contractor who worked extensively at the Dobbs house. The circuit court determined that the barking constituted a substantial invasion of the plaintiffs' properties, occurring at all hours, based on the standard of a person of ordinary sensibilities. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not excessively sensitive, and found Wiggins' claims regarding the extent of the barking unconvincing. 

To establish a nuisance, an invasion must be either intentional or negligent. The court found sufficient evidence that Wiggins intentionally caused the noise nuisance, noting that he was aware of the barking dogs' impact on the plaintiffs. Wiggins had nearly 100 dogs, recognized that certain dogs barked frequently, and understood that external stimuli could exacerbate the barking. The court’s conclusion that Wiggins knew the noise was invasive was supported by the evidence.

Additionally, the court assessed the reasonableness of the noise nuisance by weighing the harm to the plaintiffs against the utility of Wiggins' dog kennel business. Despite the business's usefulness and its suitable location, the court found that the harm to the plaintiffs outweighed the benefits, especially since the noise could not be mitigated effectively, and there were no feasible modifications to the kennels to prevent the barking.

The trial evidence supported the circuit court's findings regarding a private nuisance caused by noise from Wiggins's kennels, which significantly impacted the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property. The plaintiffs had owned their homes prior to Wiggins establishing his kennels. Wiggins presented evidence of the utility of his kennels, which trained valuable bird dogs and were maintained appropriately; however, his primary income stemmed from his trucking business. Following a noise complaint in 2007, Wiggins attempted to reduce the noise, but these efforts were ineffective. The circuit court found that the presence of 69 or more dogs constituted an unreasonable noise invasion, justifying a ruling of private nuisance.

On appeal, the court noted it could not overturn factual determinations made by the trial court unless evidence heavily favored the opposite conclusion. Wiggins contended that the court's remedy was excessive, effectively shutting down his business without a chance to mitigate the nuisance. The appeal court emphasized that granting an injunction is discretionary and does not automatically follow from a nuisance finding; all circumstances must be evaluated.

The circuit court issued a permanent injunction mandating Wiggins to reduce his dog count to six and to mitigate noise. However, the appellate court found this specific reduction to six dogs lacked sufficient evidential support, as other options for fewer than 69 dogs but more than six could alleviate the nuisance. Wiggins had kennelled dogs for over ten years without complaints before the issue arose. Thus, the injunction requiring the drastic reduction was deemed an abuse of discretion.

Evidence presented at trial indicated that Wiggins implemented several measures after August 2007 to mitigate barking noise from 69 or more dogs, but these efforts were deemed inadequate to eliminate the noise nuisance. The court found insufficient evidence to determine the maximum number of dogs Wiggins could keep on his property without causing a private nuisance. An injunction must be narrowly tailored to protect the interests of the aggrieved party without unduly restricting the defendant's rights. The trial court concluded that Wiggins could not abate the nuisance at the current number of dogs but lacked sufficient evidence to ascertain a viable dog limit that would allow him to maintain his business while reducing noise to acceptable levels. The circuit court recognized Wiggins's business as beneficial and situated in an appropriate area, suggesting a need for further evidence to accurately define the scope of injunctive relief. The existing injunction limiting Wiggins to six dogs was criticized as potentially excessive and an abuse of discretion, as the court did not fully evaluate the implications of such a restriction. The case was remanded for further proceedings to assess appropriate injunctive measures. On appeal, Wiggins contested the admission of recordings of his dogs barking, but the court upheld the trial court's discretion, confirming that the recordings were admissible given the proper foundation established during trial, in line with evidentiary standards.

Larry Dobbs provided testimony regarding the digital recorders used for recordings, detailing the process of making and handling these recordings. Both Larry and Frances Dobbs confirmed that the recorded segments presented at trial accurately represented their experiences on their property. Concerns about potential manipulation of the recordings and the fidelity of sound levels were addressed during cross-examination, impacting the evidence's weight rather than its admissibility. The judgment of the circuit court granting a permanent injunction to the plaintiffs was partially affirmed and partially reversed, with the case remanded for further proceedings. The ruling involved Justices Stewart, Chapman, and Donovan. The appeal originated from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, case number 07-MR-86, presided over by Judge Mark R. Stanley.