## Facts

- Larry and Choh‑Ying Geddes owned about 16 acres in Kane County, Illinois, used as their residence and for a developing agricultural/landscaping business.
- A planned unit development, including a golf course, was proposed adjacent to the Geddes property.
- During planning, the Geddeses objected to single-family homes abutting their land and negotiated alternatives with the developer.
- The Geddeses selected a golf fairway to abut their western boundary, made additional requests that were granted, and publicly supported the revised plan.
- A written agreement provided, among other terms, that no homes would be constructed within 100 feet of the Geddes property and no bicycle path would run along their boundary; the agreement also addressed fencing.
- After the golf course opened, plaintiffs alleged a constant stream of golf balls entered their property; they collected 2,128 golf balls during the 1997–1998 seasons, some up to about 300 feet from the boundary.
- No person on plaintiffs’ property had been struck by a golf ball; the residence and existing buildings were outside the most affected area.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages, asserting they had not agreed to a fairway abutting their property and had only sought assurances against impacts to their property use.

## Issues

1. Whether recurring stray golf balls landing on plaintiffs’ land constituted actionable intentional trespass by the golf course owner/operator.
2. Whether the same conduct created an intentional private nuisance by substantially and unreasonably interfering with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ negotiations, written agreement, and public support for the development equitably estopped them from pursuing trespass and nuisance claims.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the circuit and appellate courts for defendants.
- The court held the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Plaintiffs failed to prove intentional trespass as pleaded, given the absence of evidence that defendants deliberately caused invasions or continued them with the requisite intent.
- Plaintiffs failed to prove an intentional private nuisance because the trial court could reasonably find no substantial and unreasonable interference under the circumstances.
- Independently, plaintiffs were equitably estopped from challenging the golf-course configuration they helped secure and endorsed in exchange for development concessions.

## Legal Principles

- In a bench trial, factual findings are reviewed under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard; where multiple reasonable inferences exist, the reviewing court accepts the trial court’s choice.
- Trespass protects the interest in exclusive possession; an intentional-trespass theory requires proof of intentional invasion (or continuation of an invasion) with knowledge it will occur, not merely incidental physical intrusions from ordinary activity.
- Private nuisance requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment; reasonableness is evaluated in light of the character of the locality and competing land uses.
- Equitable estoppel may bar claims when a party’s words or conduct induce reasonable reliance, and later litigation would contradict the earlier position after others have acted in reliance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the golf course owner and operator, concluding the evidence supported findings of no actionable intentional trespass or private nuisance from stray golf balls and that, in any event, plaintiffs’ prior negotiation, agreement, and public support for a fairway abutting their property equitably estopped them from seeking injunctive relief or damages.


Geddes v. Mill Creek Country Club, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 302, 751 N.E.2d 1150 (Ill. 2001)