Morrison v. Jones
430 S.W.2d 668, 58 Tenn. App. 333, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mandatory injunction ordering the removal of a building encroachment is an extreme equitable remedy that will not be granted when it imposes an undue hardship on the defendant with little benefit to the plaintiff. In such cases, if the court has jurisdiction over the underlying boundary dispute, it may award monetary damages as a more appropriate remedy.
Facts:
- W. D. Jones and Olen F. Morrison owned adjoining lots that were once part of a single parcel owned by Mrs. Sloan.
- The deeds for both properties referenced a 'bois d’arc tree' as a corner monument, but also contained distance measurements that conflicted with the tree's actual location, creating a boundary dispute.
- In the spring of 1965, before starting construction on a shopping center, Morrison hired a surveyor who staked out the property lines based on the deed's distance calls.
- During construction in September 1965, Jones warned Morrison that the building, as planned, would encroach upon his property.
- Morrison offered to swap small parcels of land with Jones to resolve the potential boundary issue and create a buffer, but no agreement was reached.
- Morrison proceeded with construction based on his surveyor's lines, and the completed building and a concrete drainage structure encroached on the Jones property.
Procedural Posture:
- W. D. Jones and wife (complainants) filed a bill in the Chancery Court of Lincoln County, Tennessee, against Olen F. Morrison and wife (defendants).
- The Joneses sought a mandatory injunction to compel the Morrisons to remove the encroaching portion of their building and also prayed for damages.
- The Morrisons filed an answer denying that their building encroached on the Joneses' property.
- The Chancellor (trial court judge) found that the Morrisons had willfully and intentionally encroached on the Joneses' property after being warned.
- The Chancellor entered a decree granting a mandatory injunction, ordering the Morrisons to remove all encroachments from the Joneses' property within ninety days.
- The Morrisons (appellants) appealed the Chancellor's decree to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, where the Joneses were the appellees.
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 court err in granting a mandatory injunction to remove a building encroachment when the encroachment was not intentionally malicious, the defendant relied on a survey, the plaintiff delayed suing until construction was complete, and the hardship of removal on the defendant greatly outweighs the benefit to the plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - Pub Year, J.
Yes. A mandatory injunction is not a remedy of right but one that lies within the sound discretion of the court and is reserved for extreme cases where damages are inadequate. The court found that the trial court, the Chancellor, mistakenly believed it was required to issue the injunction upon finding a willful encroachment. This court, reviewing the case de novo, balanced the equities and concluded that the injunction was too harsh. Key factors included that Morrison, while warned, had relied on a land survey, and Jones waited until the building was complete before filing suit. The court determined that the cost and hardship to Morrison of removing a portion of the completed commercial building would be immense, while the benefit to Jones would be minimal. Since the court had jurisdiction to settle the underlying boundary dispute, it could properly deny the injunction and instead remand the case for a determination of monetary damages to compensate Jones for the encroachment.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the application of equitable principles, specifically the doctrine of balancing the hardships, in property encroachment disputes. It establishes that even if an encroachment is deemed 'willful' in a legal sense (i.e., continuing after a warning), a court is not automatically compelled to issue a harsh mandatory injunction. The decision reinforces judicial discretion to favor a less oppressive remedy, like monetary damages, particularly when the encroacher acted with some color of right (like a surveyor's report) and the plaintiff delayed legal action. This precedent guides future courts to weigh the relative harm and benefit to each party before ordering the costly and destructive removal of a permanent structure.
