CHARLES STINSON, ET AL. v. DAVID E. MENSEL, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Jul 12, 2017

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Edmund Covington Johnston, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellants, Charles Stinson, and Glenda Stinson.

Attorneys 2:

Allston Vander Horst, Centerville, Tennessee, for the appellees, David E. Mensel, Mary F. Mensel, Michael Sabol, and Christine Sabol.

Judge(s): GIBSON

This appeal involves a dispute between landowners over an easement on Plaintiffs’ property that allows the Defendants to use the easement for ingress and egress to their homes. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants unlawfully bulldozed the easement, encroached onto Plaintiffs’ property, and used threats and intimidation to prevent the Plaintiffs from coming on or using the non-exclusive easement. Defendants counter-sued, alleging that the Plaintiffs were actually the ones engaging in a campaign of harassment, and that the Plaintiffs were preventing the Defendants from the peace and enjoyment of the easement, which they used as their driveway. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were liable to Defendants for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The trial court also enjoined the Plaintiffs from having any use of the easement. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and partially vacate the injunction. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the nuisance claim, reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims, and vacate the permanent injunction against Plaintiffs to the extent that it prohibits them from the lawful use of their property.

Attachments: