Wow, Do I have a problem! - Please give me some needed advice

[Mike Lynch]

My wife and I purchased a building in, Ocean Isle Beach, NC almost 2 years ago, as an investment property to rent or hold and possibility sale. All was going just fine until hurricane Florence. A giant oak tree fell on the neighbors house totally destroyed it. Rain poured into the home for days. The neighbor would not remove the tree or crushed home for several months. My tenants and I got really upset at such a huge eye sore sitting there. The county officials did nothing at all for months until I called them half a dozen times.

A logging / tree company removed the tree and crushed building from the property. They worked out a deal with the land owner and started an illegal tree cutting / logging operation on the lot. (No sign permit no business permit) They installed a huge sign right in front of our sign and totally blocked one side of it. They crank up their giant tree machines and trucks shake the foundation of our building and the exhaust fumes fill the building... These vehicles have to build up hydraulic and air pressures, so they run for a very long time just sitting there. Our great tenants left the building, never to come back. I did not blame them. We are now run off from our building. Our property value has diminished and Realtors have told us that it won't be easy to rent or sale the building now that there is a logging camp next door. They are a huge nuisance and have destroyed our investment. We are now losing at least $1600.00 in revenue from our building every month. A logging company, hog farm, chicken farm, or other public nuisance should not run us off, or potential tenants, buyers, or customers from our building. How can this happen?

Our tenants have moved out of the building for good. Nobody wants a stinky diesel fuel smelling and / or office building shaking while they are trying to work and operate a business in there.

A local Realtor brought over a couple this week that wants to purchase a property for a Nail Salon.... He ask me, "What's the deal with all of those old trucks and machines next door?" ..... I had no idea what to even say. ..... What do you say?

The North Carolina Nuisance Law says that we have a right of enjoyment of our property. This is a financial and mental disaster for us right now. We are mad all day long about it and it consumes our every day. I mean, a Home, Retail Store, Animal Hospital, Nail Salon, or many things would be great beside of our building as they do not produce foul gasses, odors, and vibrating our building for hours a week. When the neighbor directly affects our lives, our tenants lives, or our investment in a negative way, there's a huge problem. I sent a video of the situation to county officials at the Brunswick County NC complex in Bolivia, NC and have made numerous calls and emails. Nothing is happening at all. They say that this is a commercial property and it is just fine with them if the trucks and junk are there. This is killing our property value.

If a new neighbor moves beside of you and runs you out of your home, will you just pack up and leave? ... How is this going to work? .... We should not be run off of our property by an illegal business next door! We have too much time and money invested in our property....... Is it okay for the county to destroy your property value, rental income, and / or sale of a building?

What do we need to do now? .... If you know someone here on the site who might not see this post, and can possibly help us out, please forward them my link.

Thanks,

Michael Lynch

North Carolina: Unit 7 – Nuisance and Other Common Law Solutions to Environmental Issues

B. NC Nuisance Laws

Examplesof nuisances:interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures.

A private nuisance involves a particular injury to a specific individual landowner.
In this case, the suit against the wrongdoer may be brought by the affected individual. If
he can establish that his enjoyment of his property was significantly diminished, he may
recover monetary damages and/or injunction relief. Private nuisances may be brought
under any of the three tort theories (strict liability, intentional tort, negligence) that we
studied. Most nuisance suits are based upon a theory of intentional tort. A nuisance may
begin as a negligent act; however, once a neighboring landowner objects to the activity
and the person creating the nuisance refuses to stop, the activity becomes intentional.

A nuisance may be both public and private if a large group is affected and, in
addition, some individuals are injured in unique ways. This depends on the facts of the
specific case, and because of the difficulty involved in determining those facts, courts and
attorneys do not always distinguish between public and private nuisances.
There are several nuisance theories on which private nuisance claims can be
based. The first is strict liability. If the activity of the wrongdoer or the conditions are
abnormally dangerous, he can be held strictly liable for resulting injuries, even if he was
not negligent. A second nuisance theory is intentional interference with another’s
enjoyment. This is the most frequently used basis for nuisance suits. The intentional
interference must also be considered to be unreasonable.

(a) the gravity of the harm
outweighs the utility of the conduct or

(b) the harm caused is serious and the cost to
compensate for it makes the conduct not feasible). A third nuisance theory is negligence,
where all of the elements must be present:

(1) existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty,
(3) causation in fact and proximate causation, and (4) actual damages.

The courts have found different remedies for private nuisances, based on the
circumstances. One remedy is an injunction (the correction of the condition) which is an
appropriate remedy when the condition is one that can be changed. This is also called
“abatement.” If the condition cannot be abated, the plaintiff will seek monetary damages
for the loss of his property value due to the permanent nature of the nuisance. The court
has the flexibility to impose both remedies if it finds that to be appropriate for the
particular circumstances.

In deciding whether to enjoin a nuisance or award monetary damages, the court
often balances hardships and benefits. Once a nuisance is determined, then the court
must find an appropriate remedy. The North Carolina Court of Appeals distinguished
between the two balancing tests (unreasonable interference and remedy) by looking at the
consequences of the defendant’s actions versus the unreasonableness of the defendant’s
actions themselves. Where the plaintiff is not without fault it is possible that the plaintiff
may be forced to pay part or all of the cost of abating the nuisance.

Economic Impact of the Common Law Approach
What the tort system seeks is to take externalities created by one party and force that
party to internalize those costs. This is fair since we are forcing the individual who
created the costs rather than a third party or society to bear those costs. Unfortunately the
tort system does this only imperfectly. Transactions costs associated with the legal
system are high so the legal system does a poor job of handling small but meritorious
claims. The tort system is also poorly equipped to handle injuries (e.g., low-level
chemical exposure) with long lag times. Proving causation is also a major problem
because of the lag times and because it is often difficult to isolate the sources of some
injuries