Make a case brief for the case ofCook v.Sullivan,829A.2d1059(N.H.Sup.Ct.2003),found on pp.218-219of The Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business, Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd, & Morehead, 17th Edition (ISBN 978-0-07-802385-9). The entire case is found in the attached photos below. My question is complete by providing the attached photos below of the case of Cook v Sullivan.

fut case 7.2 > > COOK v. SULLIVAN 829 A.2d 1059 (N.H. Sup. Ct. 2003) DALIANIS, J: . . . The defendants, John and Diane and be an appreciable and tangible interference with Sullivan, appeal a decision of the Superior Court find- a property interest." In determining whether an act ing that they created a nuisance on the plaintiffs' prop- erty by filling in wetlands and constructing a home on interfering with the use and enjoyment is so unrea- their property. sonable and substantial as to amount to a nuisance Since 1946, the plaintiffs [the Cooks] have owned and warrant an injunction, a court must balance the property on Lake Winnipesaukee in Moultonboro gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the util- Over the years, they have built various structures on ity of the defendant's conduct, both to himself and the property, including a main house, a garage, and a to the community. It is the plaintiffs' burden to prove guest house. In 1996, the defendants purchased adjoin- the existence of a nuisance by a preponderance of the ing property. evidence. At the time of the purchase, the defendants [Sul- The evidence supports the trial court's finding of livans] . . . had a three-bedroom modular house placed nuisance. At trial, witnesses testified that large por- on their property. In the course of construction, the tions of the defendants' lot were swampy and had defendants used large quantities of fill in the area pools of standing water prior to construction. The where they were building the house. In 1997, the plaintiffs' expert, Randall Shuey, a certified soil sci- entist, testified that he conducted extensive testing of plaintiffs began experiencing increased wetness, which the defendants' property subsequent to their construct they claim lasted for extended periods of time, on their tion and stated that the defendants' activities had had property. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed, among caused subsurface waters to divert to the plaintiffs' other things, that, since the construction, standing property. water accumulated in their garage and underneath Further, the plaintiffs testified that their property the house, and that the water has interfered with their was substantially wetter after the defendants built ability to use their property as they had in the past. their house. The defendants assert that there was They also claimed that this condition persisted each insufficient evidence to support this finding, or that summer from 1997 to 2001. In 1999, the plaintiffs complained to the defen- the wetness problems continued to exist at the time dants, who attempted to remedy the problem by of final hearing, because the plaintiffs' property was wet before construction. While there was evidence removing some fill along the parties' common bound- that portions of the plaintiffs' property were wet prior ary line, digging a drainage ditch and moving a wall. to the defendants' construction, numerous witnesses The plaintiffs, however, claimed that the condition of testified that the water levels increased following the their land did not change [and they sued]. defendants' construction. This testimony was cor- The trial court ruled that the defendants' con- roborated by Shuey's statement that the defendants' struction activities constituted a nuisance that dam- construction altered the elevation of the defendants' aged the plaintiffs' property, and that the remedy was land as well as the flow of subsurface waters, caus- to remove the fill and foundation from the jurisdic ing increased wetness on the plaintiffs' property. tional wetlands, which would necessarily require the While there was evidence introduced of flooding in defendants' house to be moved. . . . [T]his appeal 1998, Shuey stated that, while having a short-term followed. A private nuisance exists when an activity sub- effect, the flooding did not cause the prolonged wet- stantially and unreasonably interferes with the use ness the plaintiffs experienced in later years. More- and enjoyment of another's property. "To constitute over, the plaintiffs testified that this condition on their a nuisance, the defendants' activities must cause property repeated each spring and early summer from 1997 to 2001. harm that exceeds the customary interferences with land that a land user suffers in an organized society, The plaintiffs also illustrated various problems associated with the increased wetness. For example, 219