Indiana justices weigh whether golf course must stop balls from landing on neighbor's property

An estimated 1,500 golf balls a year land on Mitchell Schultz’s property in DeMotte, Indiana, creating a yearslong neighborhood dispute that reached the state’s highest court on Thursday. The Indiana Supreme Court is now weighing whether Sandy Pines Golf Club must stop the barrage or face closure of its driving range, a legal battle that pits property rights directly against the mechanics of recreational sport.

The 1,500-Ball Burden on a Family Homestead

The conflict traces back to 2018 when S.P. Real Estate LLC, which operates Sandy Pines Golf Club, constructed a driving range adjacent to land that had been in the Schultz family for over five decades. While the golf course itself operated for years without issue, the addition of the driving range changed the daily reality for the household. Schultz grew up on the property, moved away, and eventually returned around 2008 to care for his aging mother, according to court documents.

Once the range opened, errant drives began shattering windows, splashing into the family swimming pool, and forcing structural adjustments to everyday life. Schultz took to parking his vehicle at the far end of the driveway and sitting beneath a protective tent when using his own backyard. In 2020, his mother transferred ownership of the property to him so he would possess clear standing to file a lawsuit.

The course attempted fixes. Management introduced lower-flight range balls, instructed players not to clear the dividing net, and discouraged use of the tee boxes closest to the Schultz boundary. None of it stopped the steady rain of golf balls.

A Legal Tangle Over Intentional Tort and Comparative Fault

When the case went to trial at the Jasper Circuit Court dismissed negligence and nuisance claims under the doctrine of “coming to the nuisance,” ruling that Schultz acquired the property knowing balls landed there. However, the court found Sandy Pines liable for trespass. It then assigned Schultz 95% of the fault and the club just 5%, rendering him unable to collect damages.

That decision was upended in December by the Indiana Court of Appeals. Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that comparative fault cannot reduce liability for an intentional tort, because intent stems from a deliberate choice to commit the act. The appellate court sent the matter back to determine damages and whether Schultz failed to mitigate them.

During Thursday’s oral arguments before the Indiana Supreme Court, reported by the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Schultz’s attorney, Jacob Ahler, clarified that his client is not seeking a financial payout. Instead, Schultz wants an injunction to halt the trespass permanently. That tactical shift led Justice Derek Molter to question whether the state’s Comparative Fault Act applies here at all if no damages are sought.

Indiana justices weigh whether golf course must stop balls from landing on neighbor's property — Photo: yahoo.com

Donald Shelmon, representing Sandy Pines, defended the club by arguing that individual golfers—not the business itself—are responsible for where their struck balls land. Shelmon noted that the driving range secured local zoning approval and worked with professional designers. He warned the high court that holding the club strictly accountable would carry broad repercussions.

“It’s going to affect everyone who plays the game of golf. From the super senior league to the people that are just doing it, to everyone in between,” Shelmon argued before the justices.

The justices pushed back against that framing. Justice Mark Massa noted that Sandy Pines invites patrons to strike balls for a fee, questioning whether the business bears responsibility for the operation it runs.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush noted that the high court must first decide whether to grant transfer to review the appellate ruling. If they deny it, the Court of Appeals decision stands.