## Facts

- Benjamin B. Blanks and Mary Ann Blanks owned a home lot adjacent to Gary W. Rawson in the Indian Fork subdivision on Lake Murray, which was subject to a recorded declaration of restrictions.
- Rawson purchased and built first. The subdivision developer approved Rawson’s plans and expressly permitted Rawson to vary minimum setback requirements to accommodate the house and to place a dog pen and a basketball goal where he proposed.
- Rawson placed a basketball goal near the edge of his driveway close to the property line shared with the Blanks.
- The Blanks complained that, on one occasion, Rawson’s son played basketball while listening to loud music.
- The Blanks also asserted the basketball could damage their property, but there was no showing that any damage actually occurred.
- Rawson kept a dog pen on or near the property line behind the driveway. The Blanks alleged an odor of feces; Rawson testified he cleaned the pen daily.
- Rawson also erected a fence approximately ten feet high. The Blanks claimed it obstructed their view of the lake and characterized it as spiteful.
- The Blanks sued seeking injunctive relief, alleging the basketball goal and dog pen were private nuisances and that the fence was improper (including as a “hate fence”) and/or violated subdivision restrictions.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found the basketball goal a nuisance and ordered Rawson to remove or relocate it; found the dog pen was maintained in a filthy condition causing odor and ordered it removed or relocated; and ordered Rawson to remove the fence or reduce its height.
- Rawson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Rawson’s basketball goal constituted a private nuisance warranting an injunction.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Rawson’s dog pen constituted a private nuisance, and, if so, whether the injunction ordering removal or relocation was proper in scope.
3. Whether Rawson’s ten-foot fence could be enjoined as a “hate fence” or nuisance (including based on obstruction of the Blanks’ lake view), and whether any subdivision restriction independently required it to be removed or reduced.
4. What effect the developer’s prior approval and authorized setback variances had on enforcing the subdivision restrictions and on the equitable relief sought.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- As to the basketball goal, the court held the record did not show a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Blanks’ use and enjoyment of their land; isolated noise and fear of possible damage, without proof of actual harm, did not justify the mandatory injunction. The order requiring removal or relocation was reversed.
- As to the dog pen, the court agreed that offensive odors from an improperly maintained pen can amount to a nuisance, but emphasized that relief must be tied to the proven interference. The court upheld relief only to the extent necessary to abate a demonstrated, continuing odor problem rather than imposing an overbroad remedy untethered to the nuisance proven at trial.
- As to the fence, the court reversed the order requiring removal or height reduction where the Blanks’ showing rested largely on loss of view and hostility. Absent an enforceable restriction creating a right to an unobstructed view (or proof of a substantial nuisance), the fence could not be enjoined on that basis.
- In evaluating claims framed as restriction violations, the court treated the developer’s express approval of Rawson’s placement and setback deviations, along with the Blanks’ notice of Rawson’s arrangement before purchase, as important equitable facts limiting the case for mandatory removal of improvements.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land; minor annoyances, isolated incidents, and speculative fears generally do not meet that standard.
- Injunctive relief—especially a mandatory injunction ordering removal or relocation of an improvement—must be supported by clear proof of a legal wrong and a real, nontrivial injury; the remedy should be no broader than necessary to stop the proven harm.
- Offensive odors can constitute a private nuisance when persistent and serious enough to materially impair neighboring use and enjoyment, and courts may order measures aimed at stopping the odor rather than automatically ordering removal of the structure.
- A landowner generally has no protected right to an unobstructed view absent an easement, covenant, or other enforceable limitation; obstruction of a view, without more, is not an actionable nuisance.
- A fence is not enjoinable merely because a neighbor dislikes it or attributes bad motive to its construction; without proof of an actionable interference or a governing restriction, courts will not order its removal.
- Developer approval or authorized variances under a subdivision scheme are relevant in deciding whether later purchasers can obtain equitable relief based solely on technical restriction placement arguments.

## Conclusion

Blanks v. Rawson treats a common neighbor dispute as a nuisance case rather than a vehicle for broad aesthetic or speculative complaints: the court rejected injunctions based on a single loud-music incident, feared ball damage without proof, and loss of lake view, while allowing only properly tailored relief aimed at stopping a proven, ongoing odor interference from the dog pen.


Blanks v. Rawson, 296 S.C. 110 (1988)