## Facts

- Homeowners lived in a single-family residence adjacent to a 155-unit apartment complex.
- The apartment owner installed a single large central air-conditioning unit near the property line, roughly 5–6 feet from the homeowners’ lot and about 55 feet from their house, reportedly to save about $40,000 in initial costs.
- The unit produced loud, continuous noise during warm months, described by witnesses as comparable to a jet or helicopter, interfering with conversation, sleep, and use of the home and backyard even with doors and windows closed.
- The homeowners presented evidence that the noise substantially reduced their property’s market value (from about $25,000 to about $10,000–$12,500).
- The apartment owner presented evidence that abating the condition by converting to individual units would cost about $150,000–$200,000.
- A jury found the operation constituted a continuous and permanent nuisance and awarded $10,000 in damages.
- The homeowners waived the damages and pursued only a permanent injunction to stop operation of the equipment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a permanent injunction against operation of the air-conditioning equipment after a jury found a permanent nuisance, rather than limiting the homeowners to money damages based on a balancing of equities and public interest.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the permanent injunction.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the nuisance.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the jury’s finding of an unusual and excessive interference with residential use and enjoyment.
- The court determined the equities and public-interest considerations did not require substituting damages for injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Even when a nuisance is found, a court should balance the equities before granting an injunction.
- The balancing considers: (1) the nature and extent of injury to the plaintiff if the nuisance continues, (2) hardship to the defendant if enjoined, and (3) harm or benefit to the public from granting or denying relief.
- The comparative-hardship analysis is not strictly monetary; substantial interference with domestic life and quiet enjoyment can justify injunctive relief.
- Where no strong public interest supports continuation of the activity, a court may enjoin a private nuisance despite high abatement costs.
- Granting or denying an injunction is committed to the trial court’s discretion and is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Because the homeowners proved severe, ongoing residential interference and the record showed no compelling public need for continued operation in the nuisance-creating manner, the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering a permanent injunction rather than restricting relief to damages.


Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz, 500 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Civ. App. 1973)