The Indiana Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take up a dispute over golf balls reaching Mitchell Schultz’s property beside Sandy Pines Golf Club. The justices’ immediate task is whether to grant transfer—not whether to order the club to stop the balls. The case follows years of reported damage, including broken windows and a cracked swimming pool, and Schultz’s efforts to avoid being hit on his property.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
The dispute began after S.P. Real Estate LLC, the entity that operates Sandy Pines’ driving range, decided in 2018 to add the range beside the Schultz family’s property. The family had owned the neighboring land for more than five decades, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.
What the Construction Account Documents
A Kankakee Valley Post-News report on the range’s construction said its protective netting was supported by 22 poles, each 80 feet tall. That account documents a construction detail, but the information cited here does not establish what local land-use approvals or conditions, if any, applied.
Schultz sued, alleging negligent design, nuisance and trespass. The Jasper Circuit Court dismissed the negligence and nuisance claims before trial, while the trespass claim proceeded. The trial court found Sandy Pines liable for trespass, according to the Court of Appeals of Indiana opinion.
The Appeal Changed the Case’s Course
The trial court then applied comparative fault and assigned most of the responsibility to Schultz, leaving him unable to recover damages under that analysis, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reports. The Court of Appeals reversed the allocation of fault to Schultz and sent the case back for further proceedings on damages and whether he failed to mitigate them.
Sandy Pines had tried several measures to limit balls reaching the property, including lower-flight range balls, instructions not to hit over the net and discouraging use of nearby tee boxes. Those steps did not stop the balls from landing on Schultz’s property, according to the outlet’s account of the court filings.
The Remedy Schultz Seeks
Schultz’s attorney, Jacob Ahler, told the court his client wants the continuing trespass stopped rather than compensation for past damage, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reports. An injunction could require Sandy Pines to raise its protective netting or close the range, rather than simply pay damages.
For the club, Donald Shelmon argued that individual golfers were responsible for their shots and that Sandy Pines could not control exactly where balls landed once hit. He also disputed the reported number of balls reaching Schultz’s property and warned that a ruling against the club could have implications for golfers and golf course operators across Indiana, according to the outlet.
The Supreme Court’s Threshold Decision
The justices must first decide whether to grant transfer. If they decline, the Court of Appeals’ ruling will stand; if they accept the case, they can review the issues before them. The Supreme Court has not yet reached the question of whether an injunction should issue, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reports.
Until the court acts on transfer, the appellate ruling remains the latest decision in the case. If the case returns to the lower court, further proceedings will address damages and mitigation; Schultz’s stated aim, as described by his attorney, is to stop the continuing trespass.
