Neighbors from Hell get their comeuppance
There’s always some trepidation when new neighbors move in next door. You’re never quite sure what you’re going to get.
Are you going to be dealing with Good Neighbor Sam or American Psycho?
Me? I’m not that particular. Just keep the music down and otherwise leave me the heck alone.
A friendly wave as you’re out to get the paper in the morning is good enough for me. I don’t need any new best buddies.
But what happens when you get one of those neighbors, the type who can take any real or imagined slight and turn it into a 2010 version of the Hatfields and McCoys?
That’s who Doug and Susan Estes found themselves pitted against when the Gertzes moved in next store.
Yep, before they knew what had hit them, the Estes found themselves staring across their yard at a regular Fort Apache, complete with loudspeakers and surveillance cameras peaking into the interior of their own home.
Up goes the ’spite’ fence
Hebron, Indiana. Sounds like a pretty peaceful place. Doug and Susan had their normal troubles raising a son and two daughters, but all in all things were pretty good in Hebron.
And then the calendar flipped to 2003. That’s the year David and Nichelle Gertz moved in next door.
It didn’t take long for troubles to arise with the new neighbors.
In 2004, the two families disputed the location of the property line. Surveys resolved that dispute, but the stage was set for things to turn ugly.
The Gertzes didn’t like the fact that construction debris from an addition that the Esteses were building ended up blowing onto their property.
The Gertzes also objected to the wanderings of the Esteses’ three cats. So the Gertzes collected up the cats and took them to animal control.
And in an ultimate “we’ll show them” move, the Gertzes built a fence around their property.
This was no ordinary fence, mind you. It was a 720-foot long, eight-foot high wooden fence that stood a mere eight inches from the property line.
What’s more, the fence had some nasty features. Thousands of nail points protruded from the side of the fence facing Doug and Susan’s property.
Sounds like the sort of booby trap the Viet Cong would come up with.
Just in case Doug and Susan didn’t get the message, the Gertzes painted in orange and black the words “NO CLIMBING” and “NO TRESPASSING” on the fence.
Topping the fence off were two surveillance cameras. This brought to seven the total number of cameras on the Gertz property.
One camera mounted on the top of the Gertzes’ chimney was capable of rotating 360 degrees and magnifying images 23 times. For family entertainment, the Gertzes could grab a bowl of popcorn and watch surveillance video on their television.
The creepy thing about that was that the cameras were capable of viewing the interior of the Esteses’ home.
Then there were the loudspeakers.
The Gertzes equipped their home with a public address system.
Not only did the Gertzes use the loudspeaker system to blare loud music, they also allegedly broadcast personal swipes at their neighbors. According to Doug, Mrs. Gertz actually used the speaker system to make lewd comments to his daughters.
You just have to wonder what gets in to people.
The sweet revenge of Doug and Susan
Doug and Susan had had enough. In 2005, they sued alleging that the fence violated the Indiana “spite fence” statute.
A sympathetic judge ordered the Gertzes to remove the fence, the public address system, and the surveillance cameras within thirty days. Moreover, the judge entered protective orders prohibiting each family from contacting, harassing, or annoying the other family.
This order led to two rounds of appeals.
In Round One, the Gertzes argued that the spite fence statute did not apply to them because they had obtained a permit to erect the fence.
The Indiana Court of Appeals nixed that argument in a 2008 decision.
For one thing, the Gertzes’ building permit was only for the construction of a seven-foot fence, so their eight-foot fence didn’t conform to whatever local authorization they had obtained.
But the more fundamental conclusion reached by be court was that a building permit is not a defense under the spite fence law.
“The statute makes no reference to conformity with local ordinances. Indeed, in creating a cause of action where a fence is ‘maliciously erected . . . for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property,’ the legislature made clear its motivation to address the intent of the builder, irrespective of other government regulation. The fact that the Porter County Department of Building and Planning issued a permit is inapposite.” (Gertz I)
Round Two likewise went to Doug and Susan.
In a decision filed Monday, the Indiana Court of Appeals said that the Gertzes could not avoid having to tear down their $16,000 wood fence by simply removing the top two feet of the fence.
The Gertzes’ theory was that, because the fence is now six feet tall, it no longer qualifies as a “spite fence” under state law.
But the court would have none of it.
“[T]he trial court’s order that they remove the fence was not based solely upon the height of the fence,” the court explained. “The Gertzes have failed to show that they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of modification of the trial court’s judgment. As a result, the Gertzes must comply with the trial court’s original order and remove the fence.” (Gertz II)
- Pat Murphy
