Question about right to quiet enjoyment in Wisconsin

Question about right to quiet enjoyment in
Wisconsin
I own a property in a semi rural setting. The
town we live in is proposing to build an EMS
station directly in front of my house, no more
than 50 yards away. Ambulances would be
coming and going all hours of the night. Would
I be able to reasonably build a case that this
violates my right to quiet enjoyment?

Asked on March 31, 2019 under Real Estate Law, Wisconsin

Answers:

S.L,. Member, California Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 1 year ago | Contributor

The right to quiet enjoyment is applicable to a landlord/ tenant situation in which the tenant can not be disturbed in his/ her use or enjoyment of the premises.
Since you are the owner of the property, your claim would be nuisance, which is an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of your property.
Damages ( monetary compensation) in a lawsuit for nuisance are an inadequate remedy due to multiplicity of lawsuits for the continual noise of ambulances. Damages are also inadequate because land is unique.
When damages are inadequate, your remedy is an injunction to stop the construction of the EMS station  in front of your house.
A court will balance your right to the use and enjoyment of your property versus the city's interest in public safety to have the EMS station at that location. You should argue that the city's interest in public safety can be met by the EMS station being at a different location.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.