Building Encroachments Flashcards
1
Q
Building Encroachment
A
- basically, when you build a bit on your neighbor’s land - building the structure + leaving it there qualifies as continuing/repeated trespass
- if owner knowingly + deliberately builds over boundary, court will enjoin it (order it torn down)
- if encroachment is inadvertent or innocent, still continuing trespass, but more difficult for court to decide whether or not to enjoin
2
Q
Party Wall
A
- connects or divides two buildings
- often stands on both lots, but need not do so
- both owners derive support from the wall + have rights of support for substantially similar uses
- can be co-owned (tenancy in common) or owned by one neighbor subject to an easement in the other
- can be created by contract, statutory procedures, or prescription
3
Q
Pile v. Pedrick - Facts
A
- pl + def on adjoining properties -> def builds factory -> pls say defs they built a party wall + were allowed to build on their land to do so, but pl objected to insertion of windows
- defs say was never supposed to be a party wall + intentionally built on own land (used surveyors + competent builders + architects to ensure)
- lower court finds above-ground brick wall entirely on def. land, but foundation wall is about 1.5 inch over property line for about 50 ft
4
Q
Pile v. Pedrick - Decision + Reasoning
A
- Court says must remove the portion of the wall on the pl’s land + replace w/ wall entirely on own ground (w/o digging into pl ground)
Two ways of remedying the trespass: - permanent trespass - pl would be compensated
- removal - def has to tear down wall, fix foundation, then rebuild (pl got to choose this, + wouldn’t let def use land, which would’ve allowed to chip off foundation a bit)
5
Q
Golden Press Inc v. Rylands- Facts
A
- pls and def own adjoining property -> def builds business building on its property
- actual walls are w/in own property, but pl say foundation + footings extend 2-3.5 inches into their land-> request injunction to have removed
6
Q
Golden Press v. Rylands - Decision + Reasoning
A
- court decides mandatory injunction requiring removal should be denied
- says sometimes slight + harmless encroachment held w/in rule “de minimis”
- differentiates willful + deliberate encroachment (in which case removal regardless of cost to def or lack of harm to pl) vs. good faith (requires weighing of circumstances, such as cost to def + harm to pl)
- in this case, cost to def would be very great (since pl said no chipping away, def would have to tear down entire wall) + encroachment very slight + doesn’t really interfere w/ pl’s land
7
Q
Pile and Golden Press - Commonalities
A
- encroacher engaged in constructing up to/very close to boundary line between def’s + pl’s property
- def employed surveyor prior to construction (though turns out minor but fatal errors in locating the line)
- no evidence def acted in anything other than good faith
- no encroachment at or above surface
def offers to chip off offending encroachment, provided can obtain license to pl’s land to do so-> pl refuses - only remaining way to remove encroachment = tear down completed wall
- both courts seem to regard pl’s insistence on removal of encroachment in this fashion as inequitable
8
Q
Disproportionate hardship
A
- a.k.a. undue hardship
- cost of remedy is much greater than benefit to plaintiff
9
Q
Legal Theories Supporting Pile
A
- one view: encroachment = trespass, against which no defense of reasonableness
- another view: court might’ve been influenced by dispute over party wall - def wouldn’t have had to tear down the wall if it had agreed the wall would be a party wall + hadn’t insisted on windows (no disproportionate hardship in not being able to prevent a party wall)_
10
Q
Good Faith vs. Bad Faith
A
- bad faith encroachers do not benefit from disproportionate hardship defense
- for bad faith, courts universally agree injunctive relief + removal = appropriate
11
Q
Actual Knowledge vs. Negligence
A
- might create incentives to avoid encroachment, but could also result in individually worthwhile but socially wasteful efforts to avoid encroachments
12
Q
eBay Test
A
- deals w/ patent trolls (people who use bad/aggregated patents to surprise innocent infringer w/ sunk investment that troll extorts) -used to evaluate whether court should grant injunctive relief
13
Q
eBay Test - Criteria
A
Four Criteria: movant must show
- has suffered irreparable injury
- remedies available at law inadequate to compensate for that injury
- considering the balance of hardships between pl and def, a remedy in equity is warranted
- public interest would not be disserved by permanent injunction
Prof says problem that good faith missing, + balance of hardships subject to misinterpretation
14
Q
Ex Ante vs. Ex Post
A
- after encroaching structure built, demolition + reconstruction costs swamp all other values (ex post)
- severe bilateral monopoly
- allowing pl to force demolition inefficient in ex post perspective
- law ultimately emphasizes ex ante in cases of bad faith, but makes exception for encroachments made in good faith ex post
15
Q
Bilateral Monopoly
A
- exists when a market has only one supplier and one buyer
- the one supplier will tend to act as a monopoly power and look to charge high prices to the one buyer
- the lone buyer will look towards paying a price that is as low as possible
16
Q
Ex Ante vs. Ex Post - General
A
- ex ante more likely to consider incentives for future conduct
- ex post tends to focus on fairness + distributional concerns
17
Q
Baker v. Howard County Hunt - Facts
A
- Bakers purchase farm 1924 -> Baker breeds rabbits as part of medical experiment, also keeps chickens
- Howard County traditionally foxhunting country, though Howard County Hunt only formed 1930
- HCH likes to stage fox hunting parties in the vicinity several times a week -> hounds cross the Baker Farm on several occasions - one time Baker’s wife bitten by the hounds (HCH writes apology) + one time Baker shoots at the hounds, killing one + injuring another
- Bakers sue for trespass + seek injunction
18
Q
Baker v. Howard County Hunt - Core Q + Decision
A
- Core Q: Can equity afford an injunction for a series of repeated trespasses that, though not continuous, are part of a single course of conduct that seriously interferes w/ owner’s enjoyment of property?
- Court says yes + rules in favor of Bakers
19
Q
Baker v. Howard County Hunt - Reasoning
A
- allowing reputable dog to roam doesn’t result in trespass, but trespass if the dogs known to cause injury or brought along on a trespass (thus trespass here b/c HCH had been warned about the intrusions, plus pack of dogs more likely to do harm)
- injunction justified b/c repeated trespass (remedy at law would be inadequate b/c difficulty of measuring damages + need for multiplicity of suits)
