This leaves itself wide open for the other neighbors to get together and counter-sue her for maintaining an "attractive nuisance" by not having her yard properly fenced against balls. I read of this, where the neighbors sued in small claims court and each and every one was awarded the full claim. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/9501915B-CA16-42DA-9108FE98965C0AAB/alpha/A/

In a sane world she would lose. Lets hope sense prevails. Goodluck.

She is a pain in the ass and will not stop regardless. What does she do if they approach her door and ask for the ball back? I think the clear answer is for you and your neighbors to heavily invest in tennis balls and count the ones in her yard as lost.

If she has brought this to the attention of the parents and the children are still going in her yard for the ball then chances are she will in fact win a case concerning trespassing. Leave the balls in her yard..buy tennis balls in bulk if need be. Sounds like she is being unreasonable, but she does have the right to seek a judgement for trespassing (take pictures before court in case she claims damages that werent done by the kids) :)

Like it or not, it is her property and the boys need to respect that. I do sympathize though, as we had a neighbor like that when I was a kid and all of us kids hated her. If a ball landed in her two lots of formal gardens, we either never saw it again or we got our ears pinned back while trying to retrieve it. One girl, who was particularly tall, earned the nickname of Long Arms Link for her ability to reach over the fence and retrieve a ball without having to go into the yard. It wasn't until many years later that I realized what that mean bossy neighbor had given us. I went back to visit my old neighborhood after her husband had died and she had left. Her lovely formal garden had fallen into ruin and was a blighted spot on a now blighted neighborhood. I realized that her garden had been a gift to all of us and she'd been trying to protect it. I also realized that her nosy snooping and calling the police on everyone who'd set a foot down wrong had given us a gift of safety. When she was alive, we didn't even lock our doors at night, in the city. With her gone, the door of my old house had been kicked down three times in two years and the homeowners cleaned out of all their belongings. We played on the sidewalk, in the yards and in the back alley with no fear at all. Now, you wouldn't dare let your kids play in that neighborhood. So now I have become the nosy neighbor that watches everything, as a gift to my neighbors of creating a safe neighborhoood. Maybe there is something good about your neighbor that you just aren't seeing, as I didn't see the gift our neighbor gave us.

Yes, the neighbor will win. Of course, despite the complaints that this is a frivolous lawsuit, it should be noted that the most important part of any lawsuit is the remedy. Trespassing is a strict liability cause of action. If you enter my property with license, I will sue and I will win. But the question that matters is "what will I win?" The answer is either an injunction or nominal damages. Nominal damages (usually $1) is simply recognition that you are legally correct, but you cannot recover more because you were not harmed by the trespass. On the other hand, the neighbor could be suing to enjoin the kids from constantly hitting balls on her yard.

Landowners' Rights to Prevent Trespassing, laws do differ from state to state. There are two sets of laws that can be used to prevent trespassing. One is the civil or tort laws that allow landowners to sue trespassers for damages they cause while trespassing. The other is the statutory trespass rules that impose a fine on trespassers. A. Civil Trespass The civil trespass rules allow a landowner to recover damages caused by a trespasser. 1. A trespasser under these rules is anyone who is on the property without permission. Consequently, posting the land is not required to prove that a person is trespassing. 2. The civil trespass rules require the landowner to prove the damages caused by the trespasser. Therefore, if the trespasser has only walked across the property, the landowner is not likely to recover any damages. B. Statutory Trespass Because the civil trespass rules impose no liability on the trespasser unless the landowner can prove damages, Wisconsin has enacted statutory trespass rules that impose a fine on the trespasser if he or she has violated the statute. 1. Note that some actions are statutory trespass if the user of the property does not have permission. See Wis. Stat. §943.13(1m)(a) and (am). * 2. Other actions are trespass only if the user has received notice that he or she is not allowed on the property. See Wis. Stat. §943.13(1m)(b), (e) and (f). 3. Notice can be given to a user personally or by posting the property III. Landowner's Duty to Trespassers A. Generally, a landowner has no duty a trespasser other than to not maliciously try to injure them. 1. Therefore, there is generally no duty to warn trespassers of dangers on the property. 2. However, creating a danger for the purpose of injuring a trespasser can create a liability for the landowner. Example: Landowner set up a trap gun with a wire to the trigger so that it will discharge toward anyone entering the door of an abandoned house. If the gun causes injury, the landowner may be held liable for the damages. B. A landowner may use reasonable force to protect his or her property. In Wisconsin, it is never reasonable to use deadly force to protect property. C. Attractive Nuisance 1. Landowners have a special duty to protect young children from injuring themselves even though the child is trespassing. 2. Because young children do not have the ability to know when they are in danger, landowners who have artificial condition on their property (such as a swimming pools, farm machinery, livestock, abandoned buildings or mine shafts) have a duty to protect children from injuring themselves. 3. In order to recover under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the victim must prove the following: a. the owner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass in the area of the condition, b. the owner knows or should know that the condition creates an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury, *******c. the children do not understand the danger because of their youth, d. the utility of the condition to the owner is slight compared to the risk to the children, and e. the owner fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the children.

If you think this lady is in the wrong then wait until someone trespassing on your property "falls", gets hurt, and sues. Then tell me she wasn't in the right. The problem isn't her. It's the laws about liability. Where I live a little kid was swinging on a local business's table while the mother did nothing and it fell over on him killing him. Guess who had to pay? It should have been the bad mother for the business disruption.

I don't know, but she sounds like a real broad.