## Facts

- Northland Ready-Mix, Inc. (NRM) operated a concrete mixing plant adjacent to Rhonda McGinnis’s two parcels in Pleasant Valley, Missouri.
- McGinnis owned (1) a residentially zoned parcel west of NRM used at times as rental property and (2) a light-industrial-zoned parcel south of NRM used for a cabinet-making business and a grandfathered duplex.
- NRM’s land sloped toward McGinnis’s properties; an underground drainage pipe historically carried water across McGinnis’s land to a creek.
- McGinnis twice sealed the drainage pipe after telling NRM she had not consented to the discharge and did not want runoff onto her property.
- After the pipe was blocked, stormwater and plant-related water allegedly overflowed NRM’s boundaries onto McGinnis’s parcels, carrying sand, gravel, and cementitious material.
- McGinnis claimed repeated flooding and sediment deposits over an extended period (pleaded as 178 months), including a filled creek and impaired vehicular access for her, tenants, and customers, along with dust and noise.
- An appraiser testified to diminished market rental value during the nuisance period, calculating over $92,000 in lost rental value; McGinnis did not present specific rent rolls or itemized lost rent payments.
- A jury found NRM liable for temporary nuisance and awarded McGinnis $50,000; the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported liability and damages for a temporary nuisance, such that denial of directed verdict and JNOV was proper.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the appraiser’s testimony on loss of market rental value as proof of temporary nuisance damages.
3. Whether permitting “send a message” language in closing argument required reversal due to prejudice.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for McGinnis.
- The court held the record contained substantial evidence that NRM’s runoff and operations caused recurring intrusions and interference with use and enjoyment, supporting a temporary nuisance finding.
- The court held damages based on diminished rental or occupancy value were permissible for temporary nuisance and the $50,000 award was within the evidentiary range.
- The court held the appraiser’s opinion had an adequate foundation and any weaknesses affected weight, not admissibility.
- The court held the challenged closing argument did not warrant reversal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice affecting the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Temporary nuisance damages are measured by loss of use and enjoyment during the period of the nuisance, rather than permanent diminution in market value.
- Loss of use and enjoyment may be proven through diminished market rental or occupancy value, even without proof of specific historical rent losses, if the evidence provides a reasonable, non-speculative basis for the jury’s calculation.
- Expert valuation testimony is admissible when grounded in facts in evidence or reasonable assumptions supported by the record; trial courts have broad discretion over foundational rulings.
- Closing argument control rests largely with the trial court; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion and demonstrated prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a temporary nuisance verdict and damages award based on interference with property use and enjoyment, confirming that supported expert testimony on diminished market rental value can establish temporary nuisance damages even without itemized proof of lost rent, and deferring to trial-court discretion on evidentiary rulings and closing argument.


McGinnis v. Northland Ready Mix, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)