Yes. The judge made the right call. The law is supposed to be fair, not unnecessarily harsh. Both the Huntingtons and Proctor made an honest mistake. Forcing the Huntingtons to spend over $300,000 to move their house is an extreme and oppressive punishment. Since Proctor would only get back a small fraction of his total land (one acre out of 30), the fair solution is for the Huntingtons to pay him a fair price for the land they accidentally built on.

No. The court's main job is to protect property rights. There's a legal checklist for these situations, and one rule says the harm to the landowner must be 'slight.' Losing a whole acre of land, worth $25,000, is not a 'slight' problem. The majority bent the rules to help the Huntingtons, but in doing so, they basically let the court take Mr. Proctor's private property and give it to someone else, which is wrong.

Yes, the court can let the Huntingtons keep the land and just pay for it, because they made an honest mistake, the harm to Proctor is small compared to his whole property, and making the Huntingtons move would be way harder on them than letting Proctor keep that piece of land would help him.

The majority said that courts should be able to be flexible and fair in these situations, not just always strictly follow property boundary rules. They use a test called the 'Arnold test' to decide if it would be too harsh to make someone move in cases like this.

Here, the Huntingtons pass the test because they didn't mean to build on Proctor's land, it was a small part of Proctor's total land, Proctor still has plenty of room to build, it would be really hard for the Huntingtons to move everything, and making them move would be much worse for them than letting Proctor keep the land would be good for him.

The majority said this case is different from ones where someone barely builds onto their neighbor's land. The size of the land isn't the only important thing if the other parts of the test are met. The court can do what's most fair overall for both sides.

No, the court should make the Huntingtons move because they didn't meet two important parts of the Arnold test.

First, taking a whole acre from Proctor isn't a 'small' harm to him like the test requires. It's a lot more land and money than cases in the past that allowed this. The majority is mixing up different parts of the test.

Second, the Huntingtons didn't prove that Proctor has plenty of other room to build something similar. The acre they built on was a special flat high spot in an area that's otherwise hilly and forested and swampy. Proctor can't use that unique spot now for a house or to enjoy nature in private. That's a real limit on what he can do with his land.

The dissent thinks the majority isn't following the Arnold test the way it's supposed to be used. It's supposed to protect people's property rights except in rare cases. By focusing too much on whose hardship is bigger, the majority is basically getting rid of the Arnold test and making it too easy for courts to give one person's land to another.

Yes. A court has the equitable authority to refuse an injunction and order a forced sale of land when an innocent party encroaches, even substantially, if the equities favor such a remedy. The court reasoned that property law has evolved from rigid 'property rules' (automatic injunctions) to more flexible 'liability rules' (forced sale for damages) to avoid oppressive results. The court applied the test from Arnold v. Melani, but interpreted it flexibly, rejecting a rigid requirement that the damage be 'slight' in absolute terms. It relied on the precedent of Peoples Sav. Bank v. Bufford, where an entire parcel was encroached upon, to support the idea that the 'slightness' of the damage is relative. Here, the harm to Proctor (loss of 1 of 30 acres) was minimal compared to the enormous hardship to the Huntingtons (spending over $300,000 to move their home built in good faith). Therefore, the trial court properly exercised its equitable discretion to compel a sale for fair market value rather than issuing an oppressive injunction.

No. A court lacks the authority to deny an injunction because the strict requirements for doing so were not met. The dissent argued that the five-part test from Arnold v. Melani is not a flexible balancing of equities, but a rigid 'gatekeeper' test where each element must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Huntingtons failed to prove the second element—that the 'damage to the landowner was slight'—because the loss of an entire acre of land with a commanding view, valued at $25,000, is not 'slight' by any reasonable definition. The majority erroneously conflated the 'slight damage' inquiry with the 'disparity of hardships' inquiry. By allowing this substantial encroachment, the majority's decision constitutes a judicial taking of private property for private benefit, eroding the fundamental protections of property rights.

Yes, the court may deny a mandatory injunction to eject an encroacher and instead require the encroacher to pay for the encroached land because the encroachment resulted from a good-faith surveying mistake, the damage to the landowner was slight in relation to the value and size of his entire parcel, and the hardship of removal to the encroacher greatly outweighed the benefit of ejection to the landowner. 

The majority reasoned that property law has evolved to allow courts to fashion more flexible equitable remedies in lieu of rigidly applying property rules when the circumstances justify it. The Arnold test provides that a mandatory injunction can be withheld as oppressive when (1) the encroacher acted in good faith, (2) the damage to the landowner was slight and the benefit of removal small, (3) there is ample remaining room for a suitable structure and no real limitation on future property use, (4) it is impractical to move the encroaching structures, and (5) there is an enormous disparity in resulting hardships.

Here, the Huntingtons satisfied all five elements by clear and convincing evidence. Their encroachment resulted from a good-faith surveying mistake, not an intentional trespass. The loss of one acre, while not insignificant, was slight compared to the size and value of Proctor's 30-acre parcel. Proctor still had ample room to build a suitable home on his remaining land. It would be hugely impractical and costly for the Huntingtons to move their house, garage and well. Finally, ejection would impose a disproportionate hardship on the Huntingtons compared to the benefit Proctor would derive from the land's return.

The majority distinguished this case from those involving only minor encroachments of a few inches or feet. It held that the size of the encroachment alone is not dispositive if the Arnold elements are otherwise met based on the totality of the circumstances. The court has discretion to fashion an equitable remedy that achieves fairness and justice between the parties.

No, the court should not deny Proctor's request for a mandatory injunction because the Huntingtons failed to prove two essential elements of the Arnold test by clear and convincing evidence. 

First, the damage to Proctor was not 'slight' under any reasonable interpretation. Proctor lost an entire acre of his land, worth $25,000. This is far more substantial than the minor encroachments of a few inches or feet involved in prior cases applying the Arnold rule. The majority improperly conflates the second Arnold element, requiring only slight damage to the landowner, with the fifth element balancing the equities and hardships between the parties.

Second, the Huntingtons did not prove that Proctor has ample remaining room for a suitable structure and no real limitation on his future property use. The encroached acre contained a flat, elevated building site in an otherwise heavily forested, hilly and marshy area. Proctor is prevented from using this unique portion of his property for a future home, or for privacy, recreation and enjoyment of nature. This is a real limitation, especially considering the acre's unique topography and features compared to the rest of the parcel.

The dissent would hold the majority to a strict application of the Arnold elements as originally intended, viewing them as a narrow exception to the traditional strong protection of private property rights against encroachment. By focusing disproportionately on the balance of hardships, the majority effectively overrules Arnold and undermines fundamental property rights.

Proctor v. Huntington

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot