A dispute between two Minnesota couples over a shared driveway, tree removal and a security camera has taken another turn after an appeals court reversed a $20,000 privacy award. On October 19, 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed part of a $27,000 damages judgment in Leonard Ruby v. Dominic Stahley. According to the court’s opinion, published by Justia, the conflict began after Dominic and Melissa Stahley bought a neighbouring property in 2020 that could only be accessed through a gravel driveway on Leonard and Sandra Ruby’s land. The court sent the privacy claim back for further proceedings while reducing damages for unlawful tree removal.
A shared driveway sparks a neighbourhood feud
The Rubys bought their property in Forest Lake, Minnesota, in 2014. Four years later, the Stahleys purchased the neighbouring property, whose only access to a public road was through a gravel driveway crossing the Rubys’ land. A written easement agreement from 2014 allowed the Stahleys to use the driveway but required them to seek written permission before undertaking maintenance. It also prohibited removing trees from the easement area without the Rubys’ written consent.In 2020, the Stahleys notified their neighbours that they intended to mow grass, clear brush, trim branches, remove trees and repair the driveway. The Rubys permitted snow removal but refused permission for the other work. The Stahleys nevertheless carried out maintenance activities between 2020 and 2024, worsening the dispute.
Security camera leads to a privacy lawsuit
The neighbours also accused each other of inappropriate behaviour. Melissa Stahley alleged that the Rubys intimidated the family, verbally abused them and obstructed their access to the property. Dominic Stahley installed a motion-activated camera on another neighbour’s property, with the owner’s permission, to document the alleged conduct.In January 2024, the Rubys sued the Stahleys for breach of the easement agreement, trespass, unlawful tree removal and intrusion upon seclusion, a legal claim involving invasion of privacy. The Stahleys filed counterclaims for trespass, quiet title and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court ruled in the Rubys’ favour on their claims and dismissed the counterclaims. Following a damages trial in June 2025, it awarded the Rubys $27,000: $20,000 for invasion of privacy, $6,000 in trebled nominal damages for unlawful tree removal and $1,000 for breach of the easement agreement and trespass.
Appeals court reverses the $20,000 award
The Stahleys challenged the privacy ruling, arguing that the evidence did not establish an unlawful intrusion. The appeals court agreed that the claim required further consideration. To establish intrusion upon seclusion, a claimant must show an intentional intrusion that is highly offensive and concerns a matter in which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. The court examined images captured by the camera. They showed the shared driveway, vehicles parked on the Rubys’ property, Leonard Ruby clearing snow and the outline of the home behind trees. However, the evidence did not show that the camera was aimed directly at the home’s windows or could record its interior.The court noted that the area captured was visible to people lawfully using the driveway. It concluded that reasonable people could differ on whether the camera constituted a highly offensive intrusion into a private area. Therefore, the district court should not have decided the privacy claim through summary judgment. The appeals court reversed the finding of liability and the $20,000 award, remanding the matter for further proceedings. This does not mean the camera was definitively found lawful; the privacy claim remains unresolved.
Tree damages reduced, other claims rejected
The appeals court also ruled that the district court had incorrectly tripled the $2,000 in nominal damages awarded for unlawful tree removal, producing a $6,000 award. Under Minnesota law, treble damages for unlawfully cutting or damaging trees must be calculated from actual damages, rather than nominal damages awarded when the precise financial loss has not been established. The court therefore reduced this award to $2,000.It upheld the district court’s decision to award nominal rather than actual damages for the property-related claims, finding no abuse of discretion. It also affirmed the dismissal of the Stahleys’ counterclaims, concluding that the evidence did not establish the extreme and outrageous conduct required for an emotional-distress claim or sufficient grounds for their other claims.The ruling leaves the privacy dispute open while clarifying that tree-related damages cannot be tripled without proof of actual loss. It also underscores how disagreements over shared access, property maintenance and surveillance can become complicated legal battles when neighbours dispute both their rights and the boundaries of their properties.