In 2011 the Nwankwos filed an application with the Design Committee of their residential subdivision to build an outdoor living space on their property. The Nwankwos wished for the outdoor living space to include a "gazebo attached to the house and additional landscaping," as well as a raised patio/fire pit. The Nwankwos's neighbors, the Baruks, filed a complaint to the president of the subdivision, expressing frustration that the Nwankwos's fire pit area was too close to their own property. The Design Committee of the Subdivision held a special meeting to discuss the construction plans of the Nwankwos, and eventually ordered the Nwankwos to cease building until a new construction application was approved by the Committee. The Nwankwos appealed this order, and the Subdivision's Association scheduled a hearing between the Nwankwos and the Baruks. In 2012, the Subdivision's Association reversed their decision and allowed the Nwankwos to complete their construction of the patio/fire pit. The Baruks then requested an appeal hearing, which was denied. The Baruks eventually filed suit against the Nwankwos and Subdivision's Association, alleging common-law nuisance and trespass. How did the court rule? What evidence would the Baruks need to provide to sustain their claims of common-law nuisance and trespass? Baruk v. Heritage Club Homeowners' Ass'n, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 1531 (2014).