Florida Southern District Court

Motion
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
IN THE FLORIDA SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT
ANN PETERS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. CV-11-007
DON AND BETTY DETMAN,
Defendants.
MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT DON AND BETTY DETMAN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE IN FAVOUR OF OUR CLIENT THE PLAINTIFF MS. ANN PETERS
Plaintiff Anne Peters (“Peters”), by and through counsel, is in opposition to Defendants Betty and Don Detmans’ (“Detmans”) Motion for Summary Judgment and claims that genuine issues of material, disputed fact remain for trial. There are genuine issues of material fact both as to whether the Detmans deliberately caused emotional distress on Peters and as to whether the Detmans breached Florida’s Spite Fence statute (Florida Statutes, chapter 49, § 21 (2000)). The Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For that reason, Peters respectfully requests this Court to deny the Detman’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
FACTS
Ann Peters is a 73-year-old widow who owns a property in Sea Crest Drive in West Palm Beach, Florida. She has been living in this property for most years of her life. Roughly 6 months back, Don and Betty Detman (the Detmans) moved in a property that is next door to Peters’. Don loved playing tennis and he built a tennis court soon after he and his wife moved in. Peters loves gardening and she sometimes spend hours tending to the flowers she planted on the garden next to the line she shared with the Detmans. However, her interest was interrupted by the noise coming from the Detmans’ tennis court since Don Detman spends most of the time playing tennis. Regrettably for her, every time she complained to the Detmans, they gave her a cold shoulder claiming that they owned the property and could do anything as they pleased.
The Detmans’ tennis game became a distraction to Peters gardening as the ball would occasionally bounce into her flower garden. She kept complaining and at long last the Detmans erected a 12-feet high fence. As a result of this lofty fence, Peters’ flowers could not get an adequate amount of sunlight and they started to wither. Once more, she complained to the Detmans who arrogantly claimed that it was Peters’ herself who caused them to put up the fence and that she therefore had to learn to live with it.
Furthermore, the Detmans installed very bright mercury vapour security lights on their beach and home. The lighting was so bright that it could penetrate the windows at Peters’ house and cause her discomfort such that she could hardly sleep. Moreover, the lights illuminated the cove where Peters loved to swim while naked before going to sleep. One day Peters decided to go swimming since the mercury vapour lights were off at the beach. Before she was done with swimming, the Detmans switched on the lights and some guests of the Detmans went to the beach to talk. Peters requested Don Detman to put off the lights so that she could get out of the water but he declined. She had to get out of the water nude and with the lights on which made her feel very embarrassed.
ARGUMENT
The Detmans Caused Serious Emotional Distress to Peters Through their Deliberate and Outrageous Conduct
No one is permitted to enjoy his or her life at the expense of other people’s happiness. Don Detman maliciously played tennis game with complete disregard of the discomfort which he caused Peters. The facts in the La Porte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1964) case are obvious with regard to what really comprises acts that are malicious. In this exemplar case, the plaintiff was awarded $ 2,000 compensation for his dog which was killed by a garbage can thrown at it by one worker of the garbage collection company. In the present case, Don Detman responded impolitely and crudely to the complaints by Peters, which actually made her emotional distress worse.
When she complained about the discomfort of the 12-foot fence, Don Detman told her in a rude manner that she had to learn to live with it. In another case quite the same as this that involved Slocum v. Food Fair Stores, 100 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1958), a customer was...