Preston Block
BLAW 481
April 17, 2019
“The Watcher” IRAC Essay
In the case of “The Watcher” there are multiple issues at hand, first one being can the New Jersey
court deny an appeal of the decision to not split the lot. The second issue is what can “The
Watcher be held liable for”? The New Jersey court should not have denied the Broaddus’ appeal
for a variety of reasons. The Broaddus’ state that the court should give an appeal to them due to
the reason that the article states that earlier this year the board did approve to split a lot, of
which need more exceptions then the Broaddus would have needed. People against the
destroying of the home and splitting the lot defend themselves by saying that the board was able
to deny they since the home was in a HOA (Home Owners Association) in which HOA’s have the
rights to create rules that prevent certain construction as well as other things. They continue to
state that since HOA did instill rules that prevent people in the neighborhood from having front
facing driveways it was correct that the board denied the Broaddus’ plans and the New Jersey
court denied their appeal because the HOA rules prohibited the Broaddus’ plans. The Broaddus’
can counter by stating that since the HOA already made an exception earlier in the year they
should be given consideration and the only reason that HOA denied them is because the people
on the board do not like the Broaddus family and rejected it out of spite. The Broaddus’ state
that the New Jersey court should accept their appeal as the previous statement showed a
discrepancy within the HOA’s rules and rulings. For the issue of “The Watcher” the Broaddus
state that he/she should be liable for private nuisance. Private nuisance is “an unlawful
interference with the use and enjoyment of land”. The Broaddus’ state that “The Watcher’s”
notes made there family scared for their life and did not make them want to reside in there new
home. Therefore, these notes had direct correlation on the family’s want to not get near the
home and the notes then interfere with the use and enjoyment of their land. The other side of
the argument can state that these notes had no interference with their enjoyment of their land