Lexplug logoLexplug

Kreuzer v. George Washington University

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 155, 896 A.2d 238, 2006 WL 947650 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a party wall stands entirely on one adjoining landowner's property, the other landowner has only an easement of support in the wall, not an ownership interest. The owner of the land on which the wall is situated is free to build into the airspace above the wall, up to their property line, provided they do not interfere with the adjoining owner's right of support.


Facts:

  • Dr. Kreuzer and George Washington University (GWU) owned adjoining townhouses that shared a common wall, known as a party wall, for support.
  • The townhouses were constructed simultaneously in 1879 by the same builder.
  • A land survey established, and Dr. Kreuzer judicially admitted, that the entire party wall was located on GWU's property.
  • In 2000, GWU demolished its townhouse to build a new ten-story student residence hall.
  • The new residence hall was constructed so that its upper floors cantilevered, or extended, over the top of the party wall.
  • The new structure did not touch or rest upon the party wall and did not extend past GWU's property line into the airspace above Dr. Kreuzer's property.
  • During negotiations prior to and during construction, GWU representatives made statements that Dr. Kreuzer alleged were attempts to intimidate him into selling his property at a below-market rate.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dr. Kreuzer filed suit against George Washington University (GWU) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of first instance.
  • Kreuzer's complaint alleged multiple claims, including trespass, blockbusting, fraud, nuisance, and defamation.
  • After discovery, the trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of GWU on all claims.
  • Dr. Kreuzer, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
  • GWU is the appellee in this appeal.

Locked

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 landowner commit a trespass by constructing a building that cantilevers over a party wall, when the party wall is located entirely on that landowner's property and the new construction does not cross the property line or interfere with the adjoining owner's easement of support?


Opinions:

Majority - Farrell, Associate Judge

No. A landowner does not commit trespass by building in the airspace above a party wall located entirely on their property, as long as the construction does not cross the property line or impair the adjoining owner's easement of support. Dr. Kreuzer’s right concerning the wall, which he admitted is wholly on GWU's property, is not a possessory ownership interest but rather a prescriptive easement for support. Citing Maryland precedent in Barry v. Edlavitch, the court reasoned that the owner of the servient estate (GWU) is entitled to make any use of their property that does not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of the servitude (Dr. Kreuzer's easement of support). Because GWU's construction did not cross the property line and did not threaten the support of Dr. Kreuzer's townhouse, GWU was free to build above the party wall on its own property. Dr. Kreuzer’s claims of an implied agreement to alter the property line or adverse possession were rejected as they contradicted his own judicial admissions and established legal principles regarding easements.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the property rights associated with a party wall that, unusually, lies entirely on one of two adjoining properties in the District of Columbia. It solidifies the distinction between a possessory ownership interest and a non-possessory servitude, establishing that the adjoining owner's rights are limited strictly to the purpose of the servitude—in this case, support. The ruling provides certainty for landowners and developers, confirming their right to utilize the airspace above their property, even over a party wall, as long as they respect the boundary line and the structural integrity necessary for the adjoining easement holder. It limits the ability of an adjoining owner to block vertical development on a neighbor's property based on the mere presence of a party wall.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Kreuzer v. George Washington University (2006) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Kreuzer v. George Washington University