Brent and Laurel sued me for the destruction of private property, loss of investment, emotional distress and malicious interference with the enjoyment of the land. That last sentence made him laugh so loud that he had to sit.
“Malicious interference with the enjoyment of the earth,” he read aloud at my kitchen table. “In your land.”
“Apparently.”
“Can I maliciously enjoy a sandwich in your kitchen and sue you if you get it back?”
Ask Ruth Ann.
Ruth Ann didn’t laugh when she checked. “They’re throwing everything against the wall.”
“Some stick?”
“The mud, maybe.”
The second hearing occurred six weeks later in the same courtroom with the same judge. Brent looked thinner. Laurel looked at the table. His lawyer argued that they intended to appeal, that I acted aggressively, that the restoration should have stopped, that the lake was a good faith improvement made under professional guidance.
