## Facts

- Gary and Mable Bowling owned and lived on a rural property in St. Paul, Indiana; Christopher and Shelley Nicholson owned the neighboring property to the south.
- In 2010, the Nicholsons installed an outdoor hydronic heater (outdoor wood boiler) to heat their home, which they said reduced heating costs by $200–$300 per month.
- The Bowlings alleged repeated invasions of “thick, acrid smoke,” “noxious odors,” and particulates from the boiler onto their property, making conditions “unbearable at times” and interfering with outdoor activities and the ability to keep windows open.
- The Bowlings submitted corroborating affidavits from visitors and others describing the smoke and odors and stating some visitors refused to come due to air conditions.
- Mable Bowling, who had asthma, testified the smoke aggravated her condition and caused recurring respiratory episodes, including hospital breathing treatments; the Bowlings did not seek medical damages but offered the evidence to show the severity of interference.
- The Bowlings made extensive complaints to local authorities and environmental agencies; inspectors conducted multiple inspections, and only one violation was recorded (which the Nicholsons attributed to burning cardboard).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to restrict operation of the outdoor wood boiler pending trial.
2. Whether the trial court misapplied nuisance concepts by treating the claim as requiring physical property damage rather than substantial interference with use and enjoyment.
3. Whether the Bowlings presented sufficient evidence of irreparable harm and inadequate legal remedies.
4. Whether the trial court erred in weighing the balance of harms and the public-interest factor, including by treating regulatory compliance as dispositive.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court applied an incorrect legal framework by discounting evidence of substantial interference with residential use and enjoyment.
- The court concluded the Bowlings made an adequate preliminary showing on irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and improper weighing of harms and public interest.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires proof of: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm with inadequate legal remedy, (3) balance of harms favoring the movant, and (4) injunction consistent with the public interest.
- Private nuisance may be established by substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of property, including activity “offensive to the senses” or obstructing the “free use” of property; physical property damage is not required.
- Ongoing and substantial interference with enjoyment of one’s home may constitute irreparable harm not readily remedied by money damages.
- Regulatory compliance and limited agency enforcement do not bar a private nuisance claim or foreclose injunctive relief; lawful activity may still be enjoined if it constitutes a nuisance.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that the Bowlings’ evidence of recurring smoke and odor invasions and resulting interference with residential enjoyment could support a preliminary injunction, and that the trial court erred by treating the absence of physical damage and the boiler’s regulatory compliance as reasons to deny interim equitable relief.


Bowling v. Nicholson, 51 N.E.3d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)