## Facts

- Gregory Mills and Dean Kimbley were next-door neighbors in Indianapolis; Kimbley had lived there since 1984 and Mills moved in 2004.
- Shortly after moving in, Mills began keeping an extensive journal documenting what he viewed as Kimbley’s disruptive conduct over a multi-year period.
- Mills alleged neighborhood disturbances including marijuana smoke drifting into his home and interference with contractors hired to build a fence on the property line.
- Mills sent Kimbley a written demand letter instructing him to stop specified conduct (e.g., loud music, foul language, trash movement) and to take corrective actions concerning vegetation, objects near the line, and an allegedly encroaching sprinkler system.
- A city inspection reportedly found no code violation concerning placement of the sprinkler system.
- Beginning in 2005, Mills repeatedly videotaped Kimbley and Kimbley’s guests without permission.
- Mills sued Kimbley for nuisance, common-law trespass, criminal trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Kimbley counterclaimed for invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), alleging the videotaping interfered with his use and enjoyment of parts of his property.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against Mills on all claims and for Kimbley on the invasion-of-privacy counterclaim.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper against Mills on his nuisance claim given the designated evidence.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper against Mills on his IIED claim under Indiana’s “extreme and outrageous” standard.
3. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Mills’s common-law and criminal trespass claims, including alleged unauthorized entries or encroachments.
4. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for Kimbley on his intrusion-upon-seclusion counterclaim based on Mills’s videotaping.
5. How Indiana’s summary-judgment “designated evidence” requirements limited what factual assertions could be considered.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed summary judgment for Kimbley on Mills’s nuisance claim.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Kimbley on Mills’s IIED claim.
- The court reversed summary judgment on Mills’s common-law trespass claim and criminal trespass claim because factual disputes remained about unauthorized entry or placement of items on Mills’s property.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Kimbley on the invasion-of-privacy (intrusion) counterclaim because factual disputes remained concerning privacy expectations and offensiveness of the videotaping.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the trespass claims and the invasion-of-privacy counterclaim.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, Indiana courts consider only properly designated evidence; unsupported assertions or materials outside the record do not create a genuine issue of material fact.
- Private nuisance requires evidentiary support showing an actionable interference with use and enjoyment; weak or insufficiently supported allegations may not survive summary judgment.
- IIED in Indiana requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous and proof of severe emotional distress; ordinary neighborhood conflicts generally do not meet this threshold without strong supporting evidence.
- Trespass claims commonly turn on consent and boundary/entry facts; disputed evidence of physical entry or encroachment typically requires fact-finding rather than summary judgment.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; disputes about where recording occurred, privacy expectations, and offensiveness commonly preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that evidentiary shortcomings justified ending Mills’s nuisance and IIED claims on summary judgment, but factual disputes required trial-level fact-finding on the parties’ competing trespass and privacy-intrusion claims arising from alleged entries, encroachments, and prolonged neighbor surveillance.


Mills v. Kimbley, 909 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)