Lawyer vs. Lawyer

A state appeal court has ruled that an Encino attorney and his son can play basketball in their back yard anytime they please, suggesting that the lawyer next door, who went to court over the noise, should simply close his windows.

But the 2-year-old war of the hoops between the two Encino attorneys is far from over.

Both say they will press on with separate lawsuits.

Michael P. Rubin, a 37-year-old personal injury attorney, said that despite losing the appeal court decision to neighbor Kenneth R. Schild, a tax attorney, “I’m going to vigorously pursue the main issue, and we go to trial on that in October.”

Schild, 48, said he was delighted to be “vindicated so clearly on appeal,” adding that the case “ought to end right here, but there is still the matter of substantial damage claims on both sides.”

The two, neighbors since 1986, began their legal feud in March, 1989, when Rubin, seeking to nap after a day at the office, was disturbed by the sound of Schild and his son, Jonathon, playing basketball. When they refused to stop, Rubin sprayed them with a garden hose.

Schild and his wife, Gail, sued first, seeking damages for emotional distress caused by being sprayed. They claimed in their suit that the hose incident forced them into psychological counseling.

Rubin and his wife, Yifat, countersued, claiming that the bouncing ball interfered with their enjoyment of their home and asking damages for lost property value. Rubin submitted an appraisal saying that the basketball playing--about 60 feet from his house--had devalued his property by 15%, from $720,000 to $612,000.

Both men have hired sound engineers to support their claims.

One year ago, Rubin won a permanent injunction that limited the Schilds’ basketball playing to six hours in the middle of the day.

On Monday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal dissolved the injunction.

The appeal court conceded that the basketball playing “interfered with the Rubins’ ability to rest, sleep, relax, read, watch television and eat in their home and to converse in their back yard.”

But the three-judge panel ruled that “some degree of transitory distress is the natural consequence of living among other people in an urban or suburban environment.”

They also cited evidence submitted by an acoustical expert hired by the Schilds that “noise levels inside the Rubins’ bedroom could be substantially reduced by closing the window.”

Rubin’s suit for damages is still alive, however, as is Schild’s for emotional trauma.

Both are to go to trial together, possibly in October.

Of the appellate court ruling, Rubin said: “The only thing this means is that they can go on playing basketball until the overall issue is resolved.”