Pull v. Barnes
142 Colo. 272, 1960 Colo. LEXIS 661, 350 P.2d 828 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party, acting in good faith and without negligence, mistakenly constructs a significant improvement entirely on land belonging to another, equity may intervene to prevent unjust enrichment by providing the improver with remedies such as the right to remove the improvement or an equitable lien for its value.
Facts:
- In June 1953, Burnard and Margaret Pull (plaintiffs) located approximately one acre of land in Jefferson County upon which they desired to build a mountain home.
- Just west of the selected parcel, there was an old fence line marked with 'No Trespassing' signs.
- The Pulls proceeded to negotiate with and purchased the land from parties they believed, in good faith, asserted title to it.
- Prior to constructing their cabin, the Pulls hired a licensed surveyor to stake out the corners of their cabin site but did not ask him to survey the land to determine the exact boundary lines.
- Construction of the cabin, including a concrete slab floor and foundation, began in August 1953 and was substantially completed by the fall of 1953.
- During the construction, Margaret Barnes and Mary E. Moffat (defendants), who owned the land west of the fence line, were several times on the scene, and neither the Pulls nor Barnes and Moffat knew or suspected the cabin was being built on Barnes and Moffat’s land.
- After the cabin was completed, Barnes negotiated with the Pulls for a right-of-way through the land where the cabin stood, but the Pulls refused.
- Barnes subsequently hired a surveyor, who discovered that the cabin the Pulls had erected was solely upon the land owned by Barnes and Moffat.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 1956, Burnard T. and Margaret H. Pull (plaintiffs) initiated an action in the District Court of Jefferson County against Margaret Barnes and Mary E. Moffat (defendants) to determine a boundary line between their properties, seek damages, and request other relief.
- Other defendants originally named in the action were voluntarily dismissed.
- Barnes and Moffat erected a fence excluding the Pulls from the cabin and the land after discovering the mistaken construction, until a preliminary injunction was entered 'some two years later' in this case.
- The trial court held that the surveyed boundary line placed the cabin entirely within the land owned by Barnes and Moffat.
- The trial court concluded that the doctrine announced in `Golden Press v. Rylands` did not apply and that `Jacobs v. Perry` forbade the application of the doctrine of estoppel.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Barnes and Moffat.
- Burnard T. and Margaret H. Pull appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
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 of equity have the power to grant relief to a party who, in good faith and without negligence, mistakenly constructs a substantial improvement entirely on land belonging to another?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a court of equity does have the power to grant relief to a party who, in good faith and without negligence, mistakenly constructs a substantial improvement entirely on land belonging to another. While it is an abstract principle of common law that an improvement built upon land becomes the property of the landowner, this technical rule can lead to harsh and unjust results when the improver acted in good faith without the slightest title to the house if it were not attached to the realty. Such a situation strongly warrants the intervention of equity to grant relief in proper cases. The court cited Johnson v. Dunkel as applicable precedent, which established that an adjoining owner who in good faith erected improvements on land believed to be his own was granted the right to remove the improvements if feasible, or an equitable lien on the property for their value if removal was not feasible. Since the trial court was invoked to settle a boundary dispute and address the problems arising from the parties' predicament without bad faith, it was the court's duty to provide the equitable relief the situation demanded.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant in property law as it strongly reaffirms the role of equity in mitigating the harshness of strict common law doctrines, particularly the rule of accession regarding fixtures. By allowing for remedies beyond merely awarding the improvement to the landowner, it promotes fairness and prevents unjust enrichment when an innocent party makes a substantial, good-faith mistake. This decision provides a critical framework for future courts to consider the intent and conduct of parties in property disputes, ensuring that justice is served rather than adhering blindly to technical rules. It empowers courts to fashion flexible solutions that reflect the equities of the situation, offering alternatives like removal or equitable liens instead of simple forfeiture.
