Coombs v. Lenox Realty Co.
88 A. 477, 1913 Me. LEXIS 101, 111 Me. 178 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a minor, unintentional structural encroachment on a plaintiff's land occurs, and the cost of removal is greatly disproportionate to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, a court of equity may deny a mandatory injunction and leave the plaintiff to their remedy at law for damages.
Facts:
- In the winter of 1911-1912, the defendant erected a four-story brick apartment building on land adjoining the plaintiffs' property.
- Due to the freezing of mortar in cold weather, a portion of the wall between the second and third stories bulged as it was constructed.
- This bulge resulted in the wall overhanging the plaintiffs' land by a maximum of two inches over an area 20-30 feet high and 30-40 feet long.
- The contractor knew of the bulge before the wall was completed but did not believe it extended over the property line.
- The defendant's officers and agents were not aware of the encroachment until after the building was finished.
- The encroachment causes no present pecuniary damage to the plaintiffs and does not interfere with their current use of their property.
- To remove the overhang, the defendant's wall would have to be torn out from the inside and rebuilt at great expense.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs brought two successive actions of trespass against the defendant and recovered a judgment in each.
- Plaintiffs then filed a bill in equity in the trial court seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to remove the encroaching wall.
- The trial court (the sitting Justice) dismissed the plaintiffs' bill.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decree to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a minor, unintentional encroachment of a building onto a plaintiff's property, where the cost of removal is greatly disproportionate to the injury suffered, warrant a mandatory injunction for its removal?
Opinions:
Majority - Spear, J.
No. A mandatory injunction is not warranted to compel the removal of a minor, unintentional encroachment where the hardship to the defendant would be greatly disproportionate to the benefit gained by the plaintiff. While equity has jurisdiction to abate such a nuisance to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits, a mandatory injunction is a discretionary writ. The court distinguishes between a willful trespass, where removal is compelled regardless of cost, and an innocent mistake. Here, the defendant's encroachment was an innocent mistake, not an intentional appropriation of the plaintiffs' property. The injury to the plaintiffs is trivial, while the expense and damage to the defendant to remove the wall would be enormous. Therefore, equity does not permit the court to issue such a harsh and inequitable remedy, and the plaintiffs are left to their remedy at law for damages.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of the equitable doctrine of 'balancing the hardships' or 'relative hardship' in property law. It establishes that a property owner's right to an injunction is not absolute, even in cases of a continuing trespass like a structural encroachment. The decision solidifies the distinction between a willful trespasser, against whom an injunction will almost always issue, and an innocent trespasser, for whom a court will weigh the equities. This precedent guides future courts to consider the defendant's state of mind and the proportionality of the remedy, allowing them to award monetary damages in lieu of an injunction where the encroachment is minor, innocent, and the cost of removal is grossly disproportionate to the harm.
