Indiana Supreme Court hears a neighbor's fight over 1,500 range balls a year

The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case that asks how much a driving range owes the house next door. Mitchell Schultz says roughly 1,500 golf balls a year have landed on his family's property since Sandy Pines Golf Club opened a range beside it in 2018, according to court records cited by the Indiana Capital Chronicle and The Indiana Lawyer.

How it got here

The Indiana Court of Appeals described the damage in its December 2025 ruling, as recounted by the Capital Chronicle: broken windows on the family home and balls in the swimming pool. Schultz took to parking at the far end of the driveway and sitting under a tent in the backyard. Sandy Pines switched to lower-flight range balls, told golfers not to hit over the net and steered them away from the tee boxes closest to the property. The balls kept coming.

A Jasper County trial court found the club liable for trespass, then assigned Schultz 95% of the fault because he took ownership knowing balls landed there. That left him with no damages. The appeals court reversed, ruling that comparative fault cannot shrink liability for an intentional tort, and sent the case back on damages.

What happened Thursday

Schultz's lawyer, Jacob Ahler, told the justices his client wants the balls to stop, not a check. Ahler said an injunction could require higher netting or closing the range, and noted that 15 five-gallon buckets of collected balls sit in the Jasper County Courthouse attic.

Donald Shelmon, the club's lawyer, argued the golfers hitting the shots are responsible, not the business, and disputed the ball count. Justice Mark Massa pushed back, saying the range invites people to hit balls for a fee. Justice Derek Molter compared it to telling someone not to live next to a gun range if they don't want stray bullets.

The court still has to decide whether to take the case at all. If it denies transfer, the appeals ruling stands.

What it means for golfers

Shelmon told the court a ruling against the club would "affect everyone who plays the game of golf." If you run or are planning an outdoor range near homes, the case is a reminder that netting height and layout decisions can end up in front of a judge. If you hit balls into a simulator screen at home, this is one problem you don't have.

Watch for the court's transfer decision and, after that, whether the trial court is asked to order changes to the range.