A new condo tenant is causing a racket. Can a neighbour sue for disturbing the peace? you be the judge

Myra Harris was ready to tear her hair out. She loved her condo on the fourth floor of the Federal Fibre Mills building in New Orleans’s historic and trendy Warehouse District – and who wouldn’t, with its high ceilings, cypress-wood beams, exposed-brick walls and a view of the Mississippi River? But life there had become a nightmare.

Myra’s big headache started when the owner of the unit below leased it in September to a middle-aged woman. Suddenly Myra was being jolted awake between midnight and six in the morning when the new tenant blasted the television or stereo at full volume, Myra said in court documents.

TV noise wasn’t even the worst of it. On numerous occasions, Myra said, the woman would wail and scream in the early morning hours. Myra also claimed that the tenant held loud parties that lasted late into the night. Myra said in her court petition that her neighbour would bang on the ceiling and pipes with a hard object for hours. The clanging echoed into Myra’s unit above. A number of times, she even called the New Orleans Police Department, which took hours to send officers. To get away from the racket, Myra began sleeping in another neighbour’s condo when he was out of town.

In the four months after the downstairs tenant’s arrival, Myra sent 17 letters of complaint to the condo board, asking it to take action. The board did nothing until January, Myra asserted, when it sent the owner of the condo a letter saying it would enforce the rules. Myra said that she reported the problem to building security, but nothing came of it, other than a visit from a guard, who made some notes in his log-but he eventually stopped responding to Myra’s calls.

She described another time when she called the police and waited for them in the building lobby in the early hours of the morning because of the din. The police told Myra that they could ticket the noisy neighbour, but whatever they did, the situation didn’t change.

Finally, Myra decided to file a lawsuit against the condo association, claiming it was responsible for the administration, operation and enforcement of the rules and restrictions that applied to all the condos on the property.

Those rules, contained in a document called “The Declaration of Condominium Regime,” stated that no loud noise, music or other nuisances that would ‘disturb or annoy’ other occupants of the building would be permitted between 11p.m. and 9 a.m. The rules also said that ‘no noxious or offensive activity’ could go on at any time in any unit, and that any nuisance that is ‘a source of annoyance to residents’ would not be allowed. The declaration clearly gave the board the right to enforce the rules and to impose fines for violations.

But, Myra claimed in her lawsuit, instead of helping her, the Federal Fibre Mills board told security personnel to stop responding to her complaints. She also asserted that it had failed to take prompt action against the owner of the condo, who had rented the unit to the problem tenant in the first place. Not until January did the board finally sent a letter to the owner saying it would enforce the rules, according to Myra’s petition. Eventually it fined the owner of the condo unit. For Myra, it was too little too late.

She asked the court to award damages to her for the condominium board’s failure to enforce the building’s rules and for the ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress.’ She claimed the tenant violated her right to enjoy her property without unreasonable disturbance. She also said that the board had failed in its responsibility to protect her rights.

The condo board, for its part, argued that Myra had no basis to make a legal claim. Although the declaration that contained the condo association rules stated that the board had a right to enforce the rules, it didn’t say that it had a duty to do so. The board added that there was no Louisiana law that imposed such a duty. The board contended that it had the absolute right to enforce – or not enforce – the condo rules and restrictions. The choice, it said, was up to the board.

1. Does Myra Harris have a strong case to go to court?

2. What Myra’s right was violated by her neighbour?

3. Should Myra Harris be compensated for her disturbed peace?

4. Guess what the verdict was.

Read the verdict and answer the question after it.

Both the trial court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana found that Myra Harris failed to make her case. While she correctly stated that the condominium association had the right to enforce its rules, regulations and restrictions, and to impose fines for violations, both courts agreed that a right is not a duty. The Louisiana Condominium Act, which lists the powers of an owners’ association, allows – but doesn’t require – condo associations to adopt restrictions on unit owners and to enforce them.

Though Myra certainly had a problem and the condo board’s provisions clearly stated it could fine those who disturbed the peace, the board was not required by law to enforce the rules so that she could enjoy her property. After the decision, Myra moved out and bought a house. She never wanted to deal with a condo board again.

1. Do you agree with the decision in this case?

2. What would you do in her place?

3. What would be the verdict?

Speaking 4.

Act out the following situations.

1. Make out a dialogue between Myra and her noisy neighbour.

2. Make out a dialogue between Myra and a representative of condo board.

3. Make out a dialogue between Myra and a lawyer about her case.

Listening 3 A. NOISY NEIGHBOURS I.

Ex. 10. You will hear five short extracts in which different people are talking about problems with neighbours. For questions 1-10, choose the correct answer A, B or C. You‘ll hear the recording twice.

1. What was the first speaker’s attitude to the noise from the gym?

A. tolerance B. annoyance C. resignation

2. What action did she take?

A. She moved house. B. She complained to the local authorities. C. She spoke to the owner.

3. What was the second speaker’s reason for complaining about the trees?

A. They spoilt the view. B. They were in poor condition. C. They shut out the light.

4. How did the neighbour react to his request?

A. She was very understanding. B. She became quite angry. C. She cut the trees down.

5. What does the third speaker say about her neighbour?

A. He exaggerated the problem. B. He attacked her animals. C. He caused her distress.

6. What did she have to do to the cockerel?

A. give it away B. move it C. sell it

7. What effect did the neighbour’s television have on the fourth speaker and his wife?

A. It made them behave differently.

B. It caused the break up of their marriage.

C. It seriously affected their health.

8. What does he say about the new house?

A. He regrets buying it. B. The location isn’t ideal. C. The neighbours live too close.

9. What does the fifth speaker say about people’s reaction to noise?

A. Noise can cause people to become violent.

B. People are generally intolerant of noise.

C. People respond in different ways to noise.

10. She says that victims of noisy neighbours feel

A. depressed B. guilty C. helpless

Ex. 11. Answer the following questions.

1. Which of the speakers do you have most and least sympathy with? Why?

2. Have you had any similar problems with neighbours yourself? Are you a noisy neighbour?

3. What, if anything, can or should be done to help victims of noisy neighbours?

Now, listen again and define the phrases with the following meaning.

1. A loud unpleasant noise from jumping, running, etc. that lasts for a long time

2. To turn the TV set on at a full volume

3. The sound of a loud music playing in the next apartment

Ex. 12. Choose the adjective in each group of three which has a very different meaning to the other two.

1.	squeaky	high-pitched	deep	VOICE
2.	loud	booming	hushed	VOICE
3.	distant	unmistakable	muffled	SOUND
4.	excessive	incessant	constant	NOISE

Ex. 13. Choose the word which does not normally collocate with the noun or adjective in capital letters at the beginning of each line.

Noun + verb
1.	dogs	grow	roar	whine
2.	noise	dies down	fades away	goes off
3.	doors	slam shut	rustle open	creak open
4.	bells	hoot	tinkle	chime
Adjective + noun
5.	rowdy	behaviour	fans	engine	party
6.	piercing	groan	cry	scream	shriek
7.	deafening	applause	cheer	silence	ear

Ex. 14. Complete each of the gaps in the sentences below with a collocation from the exercises above.

1. “Come in,” he said in a high ………………………. that made him sound like a little mouse.

2. She spoke in a …………………………, anxious not to wake anyone up.

3. We could hear the …………….. of Bob’s tractor in the valley below; it was faint, but unmistakable.

4. Wait until the ………………. a little before you give your speech, otherwise you’ll have to shout.

5. Police arrested several ……………. who had clearly been drinking before the match.

6. His shock announcement that he was resigning met with ………………; no one knew quite what to say.

7. There was a sudden gust of wind and the ……… behind her; she thought at first a gun had been fired.

Listening 3 B. Noisy neighbours II.

Listen to the following dialogue; retell what was happening using collocations from the previous exercises.

Listening 3B. NOISE AND SOUND

You will hear a sequence of sounds. Make notes as you listen. Discuss with your partner what might have been happening. Wherever possible use vocabulary from the previous exercises to describe the sounds.

Ex. 15. Complete the text using one word in each gap.