DOBBS V. WIGGINS 401 Ill. App. 3d 367 (2010) CASE BRIEF

DOBBS V. WIGGINS

401 Ill. App. 3d 367 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Wiggins (D) appealed an order that found a private nuisance existed and that he have no more than six dogs in his possession and take steps to properly suppress any noise caused by those dogs.

FACTS: Dobbs (Ps) and D all reside on a dead-end road. Ps have lived on their property for approximately 30 years. D purchased his property in 1995, built a home and dog kennels on the property, and began raising, training, and kenneling bird dogs. On November 19, 2007, Ps sued D for a private nuisance from the barking dogs. Ps requested the circuit court to enjoin D from kenneling dogs on his property or, alternatively, to order him to reduce the number of dogs to a reasonable number and take the steps necessary to adequately suppress the noise caused by any barking dogs. Ps testified that the barking was constant, day and night. The dogs might bark for two straight hours, take a break, and start barking again, and there was never any extended period of time in which they completely quit barking. The dogs barked more when they were being fed or when they thought they were going to be taken out of their kennels. Deer and other wildlife running across the property and coyotes howling at night tended to stir up the dogs. Ps testified that when they went outside to do chores they could not spend any time outside enjoying their property and could not have windows open because of the barking noise. Animal control office forced D to comply with kennel licensing requirements but did not do anything about the noise. The parties inspected D's kennels in preparation for the trial, and at that time counted a total of 69 dogs. During the inspection, whenever someone arrived, the dogs barked for 20 to 30 minutes before quieting down. After the dogs quieted down, they could carry on a normal conversation in front of the kennels. All the complaints against D were extremely similar. A veterinarian testified by way of an evidence deposition that D's kennels were typical bird dog kennel that were pretty clean and the dogs visually appeared to be healthy and happy. D testified that from 2002 to 2008, he has had a total income of $139,295 from selling his bird dogs. On August 11, 2007, P told D that the barking was out of control and asked him to do something about it. According to Wiggins, that was the first time P had complained about the barking in the 15 years he had lived there. At that time, D owned approximately 100 dogs. D eventually began efforts to keep the dogs quite. The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Ps. The court found that D's dogs barked during all hours of the day and the night. The court found that the barking dogs resulted in an invasion of Ps' interest in the use and enjoyment of their lands and that the gravity of the harm done to Ps outweighed the utility of D's dog kennels. The court ordered D to decrease the number of dogs in his possession to no more than six, to kennel his dogs in the southern region of his property, and to take all the steps necessary to adequately suppress any noise caused by any barking dogs. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner