A fool for a neighbor?

Kenneth and Gail Schild lived in the upscale Encino area of Los Angeles, California with their two teenage children. Part of the Shilds' lot was near the rear half of a neighboring lot owned by Michael and Yifat Rubin, who had an infant child. Despite the difference in the ages of their children, Kenneth Schild and Michael Rubin even were in the same line of work. So, on the face of things, they had all the ingredients for pleasant relations among neighbors, or even a friendship.

Unfortunately, Schild's and Rubin's mutual profession was the law. And what could have— maybe even should have—become a friendship turned instead into the War of the Lawyers.

In December 1987, the Schilds installed a basketball hoop in their backyard—a regulation hoop about 55 or 60 feet from the wall separating the two properties, from which the Rubins' house was an additional eight feet away. Despite the distance, the Rubins complained that basketball playing by the Schilds' children and their friends disturbed their peace and quiet.

Trying to be good neighbors, the Schilds poured concrete into the hollow metal pole holding the hoop and backboard, and padded the backboard with foam rubber to deaden the noise. This diminished the noise somewhat, but not enough for the Rubins. One day in March, 1989, Michael Rubin complained about the Schilds' son playing basketball, but Mr. Schild didn't make him stop right away. So Rubin sprayed the basketball area with his garden hose, soaking Schild and his son, and the battle was on.

First, the Schilds sued, seeking damages for the hose-spraying incident, alleging assault, battery, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also sought an injunction against “harassment ” (or maybe just watering the lawn). And they added some stuff about the Rubins playing loud music, too. The Rubins, of course, countersued, claiming the Schilds had disturbed their peace and quiet with that basketball hoop, and likewise sought an injunction against the Schilds.

Being a lawyer, Rubin took this very seriously. He hired an acoustical engineer to monitor the sound coming from the Schilds' house. Not to be outdone, the Schilds hired a sound engineer, too. The most revealing thing in the whole case, however, may be that the Rubins sought damages for the “reduced value” of their house (neighboring basketball always seems to do that) from $720,000 to $612,000. That's over $100,000—more than many people in some parts of the country might have spent for a whole house in those days.

The trial judge eventually gave the Rubins an injunction limiting the hours the Schilds could play basketball. But despite ruling for the Rubins, the judge didn't have kind words for either side.

“It is the Court's conclusion that what is involved here is simply spiteful conduct on the part of the parties involved, that there…has not been an attempt to find a basis for neighborly accommodation between people living in relatively close quarters…Instead, what we have are lawyers utilizing their own unlimited resources to accelerate petty neighborhood squabbles into a community war.”

The judge added, “The lawyers' costs, the expert witnesses, the engineers, the fancy testing equipment, it is mind boggling that that kind of money should be expended by all of you in this matter. You have by your conduct and by your positions as lawyers embarrassed the Bar and the judicial system as a whole. You have subjected the whole system to ridicule and public scorn” — not a hard thing for lawyers to do, of course, then or now.

Nevertheless, the Schilds appealed, and the court of appeal even threw out the injunction, not only agreeing with the trial judge that the whole case was as absurd as the trial judge thought, but also concluding it was not the kind of stuff the harassment law was intended for. “The noise from a ball and the verbal chatter by several people engaged in recreational basketball play in the residential backyard… playing at reasonable times of the day for less than thirty minutes at a time and no more than five times a week” simply was not “harassment.”

There is an old saying that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. But as the Schilds and the Rubins demonstrated, when lawyers file their own lawsuits against one another, there can also be fools on both sides of a case.