Peters v. Archambault
278 N.E.2d 729 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is ordinarily entitled to a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of a significant, though unintentional, encroachment on their land, and this right is especially strong when the land is registered, as equitable defenses like disproportionate cost of removal are rarely sufficient to deny relief.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs and the Archambaults own adjoining, registered, ocean-front lots in Marshfield.
- In 1946, the Archambaults' predecessor in title obtained a building permit and constructed a house.
- The house was built partially on its own lot and partially on the adjoining lot now owned by the plaintiffs.
- The encroachment is substantial, covering 465 square feet, which is over nine percent of the plaintiffs' lot area, and extends fifteen feet three inches onto their property.
- The Archambaults purchased their lot and the encroaching house in 1954.
- The plaintiffs purchased the adjoining lot on June 14, 1966.
- On July 14, 1966, the plaintiffs had a survey of their land conducted and discovered the encroachment.
- There was no evidence that any prior owner of the plaintiffs' lot had given permission for the encroachment.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued the Archambaults in Massachusetts Superior Court (a trial court).
- The plaintiffs' complaint sought a mandatory injunction to compel the Archambaults to remove the portion of their house encroaching on the plaintiffs' land.
- The trial court judge found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling there was no estoppel or laches.
- The trial court entered a final decree ordering the removal of the encroachment.
- The Archambaults, as appellants, appealed the decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landowner entitled to a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of a substantial, innocent encroachment on registered land where the cost of removal is greatly disproportionate to the injury suffered by the landowner?
Opinions:
Majority - Cutter, J.
Yes, a landowner is entitled to a mandatory injunction to compel removal of a substantial encroachment on registered land, even if the encroachment was innocent and the cost of removal is disproportionate. The general rule in Massachusetts entitles a landowner to mandatory equitable relief to compel removal of a significant encroachment. While rare, 'exceptional' cases exist where courts refuse an injunction—for instance, due to estoppel, laches, or a de minimis intrusion—this case does not qualify. The encroachment is substantial, not trivial, consuming over nine percent of the plaintiffs' small lot. Critically, the land is registered, which provides landowners with greater protection from unrecorded burdens. To allow the encroachment to remain would defeat the purpose of the land registration act, which is to provide certainty of title free from unregistered claims like adverse possession.
Dissenting - Tauro, C.J.
No, a court of equity should exercise its discretion and deny a mandatory injunction where it would be oppressive and inequitable. The facts of this case present 'exceptional' circumstances justifying the denial of an injunction. The defendants are innocent parties who purchased the property with the encroachment already in place, and it existed without complaint for twenty years. The plaintiffs purchased their property with the defendants' house in plain view, and only discovered the encroachment by a fortuitous survey. Forcing the defendants to remove a substantial portion of their home is a severe burden entirely disproportionate to any injury suffered by the plaintiffs, who can be adequately compensated with money damages. Equity should not be a 'fossilized concept,' and refusing an injunction here does not defeat the land registration act; it simply relegates the plaintiff to a legal remedy instead of an oppressive equitable one.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a property-rights absolutist view in Massachusetts, particularly for registered land, by strictly limiting the equitable doctrine of balancing hardships in encroachment cases. It establishes that the registered status of land acts as a powerful shield against equitable defenses, making it nearly certain that a court will order the removal of any significant encroachment, regardless of the encroacher's innocence or the high cost of removal. The case significantly narrows the scope of 'exceptional' circumstances, signaling to lower courts that equitable discretion should be rarely exercised in favor of an encroacher when registered land is involved. This precedent reinforces the certainty and integrity of the land registration system at the expense of what some might consider a more flexible, equitable outcome.
