I. READ the following NARRATIVE FACTS; CONSIDER the issues presented:

Billionaire Munn E. Gotz is an ocean-front estate/mansion homeowner in Malibu. Wealthy "digital entrepreneur" Dadd E. "Wore" Bux owns a neighboring estate/mansion, just north up Pacific Coast Highway, next door to the Gotz estate.

In a stellar display of "one-upsmanship" and of conspicuous wealth, Gotz installed a 26-foot-long blown glass sculpture entitled "Blowin' in the Wind" by artist Dylan Bobb, valued at over $25 million in his mansion's ocean-side yard.

Almost immediately, Bux became incensed at Gotz's "gross display" and complained loudly to the City of Malibu. Specifically, Bux claimed that the sculpture on Gotz's property was installed without proper City permits and had been "unnecessarily ugly", covered by a "hideously gross" net for weeks. Bux's grievance further alleged that, when uncovered, the smooth, crystal-clear surfaces of the sculpture acted like a magnifying glass, focusing the sun's rays on Bux's expensive, prize-winning "super azaleas," burning them to a crisp.

The City of Malibu issued "cease and desist" citations against Gotz, which largely was a waste of paper, as the City lacked the personnel to enforce the citations.

Not used to being ordered around, Gotz responded to the citations "like a boss" (more like a "Boss Baby"), by playing loud music, including, repeatedly, The Trashmen's 1963 surfing anthem, "Surfin' Bird", aka, "Bird is the Word" - annoying played once; sheer torture played repetitively. Gotz's strategy was to try to get Bux to drop his complaints, and, if that failed, to bug the living daylights out of Bux ("Maybe he'll move!").

Gotz's "antics" failed to persuade Bux to drop his formal grievances filed with the City. Bux waited weeks for the City to execute its threat to remove the sculpture permanently, but Bux grew frustrated, and seeing Gotz being picked up by a limo one day, he threatened to give Gotz's sculpture "a good kick in the glass."

However, one warm summer evening, while Gotz was hosting a black-tie, double-header, "invite-only" concert by Kenny G and Michael Bolton (Prof. Simonian's worst musical nightmare), Gotz discovered large broken pieces of glass in the grass (the lawn, not marijuana). Much like his precious sculpture, Gotz was shattered. He immediately blamed his neighbor, Bux, and he sued Bux for millions.

After being served with Gotz's lawsuit, Bux, though his lawyer, immediately filed both a "complete denial" of Gotz's allegations and also a cross-complaint against Gotz, seeking millions in compensatory and punitive damages, for Gotz's harassment and for property damage caused by Gotz's sculpture.

At trial, Bux denied ruining Gotz's sculpture personally and claimed that the damage actually was "retribution by God" against Gotz, as the million-dollar art piece was broken accidentally by a falling palm frond from one of the many palm trees lining the Bux estate. Because it was an unintended, uncontrollable "act of nature, not of man", he could not be held liable, Bux testified poetically.

Assume that Gotz has admitted in his trial testimony that he played loud "surf" music on his estate "on occasion."

However, Gotz also has claimed that Bux is "just being a jealous, sniveling little p*tz (a "colorful" term for a male private part) who is too poor to appreciate true art, so he has to destroy it and anybody who can afford it."

Gotz further claims that his use of his multi-million-dollar estate is ordinary, not excessive or unreasonable for a property of its caliber, and well within his ownership/property rights, which are absolute. ("Isn't this a free country??? I have rights under The Constitution!!!")

Assume also that Gotz begrudgingly admitted in trial testimony (answering cross-examination questions) that he did intentionally play his "surf" music loud and unusually early and late in the day, which may have annoyed Bux. Gotz claimed that annoying Bux was never his intention ("I really dig those tunes!!! Can't get enough of 'em!!!), but he admitted that annoying Bux was an "incidental benefit", a little "guilty pleasure" on the side.

Based on his admissions in his trial testimony concerning his use of his own property and its effect on Bux, will Gotz be held liable to Bux for this behavior?

If so, (1) identify and define the specific property tort (or torts) that Bux could claim applies/(apply) to Gotz's behavior; (2) explain why Gotz's claimed absolute ownership/property rights do not apply to insulate Gotz from liability; and (3) citing specific Narrative Facts, identify each property tort claim Bux will prevail on (win) and explain why he will win.

OR, if not, (1) identify and define the specific property tort (or torts) that Bux could claim applies/(apply) to Gotz's behavior; (2) explain why Gotz's claimed absolute ownership/property rights insulate Gotz from liability; and (3) citing specific Narrative Facts, identify each property tort claim Bux will lose and explain why he will lose.