Negligen, an Will ul Are Trea e e Same

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Negligen, an Will ul Are Trea e e Same"

Reynard Emory Blake
5 years ago
Views:

1 T e Law I W a I I, bu I I E ui able T e Law o En roa men W ere e Inno en, Negligen, an Will ul Are Trea e e Same A landowner builds a house that encroaches two feet on his neighbor s property. The encroachment involves very little land, but it creates many issues for the respective landowners. In today s society, where subdivisions are developed daily, there is an increasing potential for encroachments due to innocent mistakes, negligence, or willfulness. When an encroachment occurs, it would be terrific if the parties could negotiate a fair solution, but this rarely happens. This is because the law automatically places an encroaching landowner in an inferior bargaining position. In North Carolina, courts will order the encroaching landowner to remove the encroachment regardless of his intent. Therefore, the encroaching landowner must meet the neighbor s demands for waiving a mandatory injunction to compel removal or prepare to move the encroaching portion of the structure. This Article addresses the public policy and equitable issues sparked by the encroachment of a permanent structure on an adjoining landowner s property. It focuses on the equitable hardship doctrine, which is commonly invoked by many jurisdictions in encroachment cases and applied when the circumstances of a given case justify superseding the landowner s ordinary remedy to an injunction a doctrine which North Carolina has paid lip service to but does not apply. The analysis in this Article leads to the conclusion that in determining whether to grant an injunction, a court must balance the equities by assessing the relative hardship of each party. Application of the equitable hardship doctrine in encroachment cases will prevent economic waste, the potential for extortion, and unnecessary litigation, and create a just result for both parties.

2 Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co. Bishop v. Reinhold Bishop Williams v. South & South Rentals, Inc. Young v. Lica Cornelius v. Corry Mathis v. Hoffman Graham v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

3 . See, e.g.. See Much Ado About Mighty Little North Carolina and the Application of the Relative Hardship Doctrine to Encroachments of Permanent Structures on the Property of Another

4 . Id.. See. See, e.g. Young Williams Bishop. See Trespass to Land in North Carolina Part II. Remedies for Trespass Remedies for Trespass. See Beacon Id. Id.. Equity See supra. Id.

5 Bishop v. Reinhold Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop. Id.. See. Id.. Id.. Id. Id.. Id.. Id.. Id.. See infra

6 A. Permanent or Continuing?. See Encroachment Trespass to Land in North Carolina Part I. The Substantive Law Substantive Law Adjoining Landowners. Id.. See supra

7 . See supra supra. Id.. Id.. Id.. Id. Id.. Id.. See id.. Id.

8 B. Characterization Determines the Statute of Limitations. Id.. Id. Id.. Id. Remedies for Trespass supra Injunction Against Repeated or Continuing Trespasses on Real Property Right of Private Sewerage System Owner to Enjoin Unauthorized Persons from Using Facilities See also supra. See id.

9 . Id.. See. See When Does Cause of Action Accrue, For Purposes of Statute of Limitations, Against Action Based Upon Encroachment of Building or Other Structure Upon Land of Another. Id.. Id.. Id. see also

10 C. Characterization Determines the Remedy. See Bishop ; see also. Williams. Id. Williams. See Bishop supra. Id. Williams. Bishop. See Williams

11 . See supra. See, e.g. Remedies for Trespass supra supra supra. See Williams Bishop. Mandatory Injunction. See supra. Id.

12 A. In General Remedies for Trespass supra Id.. Id.. Id. Remedies for Trespass supra supra supra supra. See, e.g. id. see also Collins. Young supra

13 B. Adequacy of a Legal Remedy English v. Holden Beach Realty Corp.. See, e.g. Conrad Mandatory Injunction to Compel Removal of Encroachments by Adjoining Landowner supra. Id.. See supra. English. Id. Id. Injunctions

14 C. Factors Determining Issuance of a Mandatory Injunction. Id.. Id. Injunctions. Adjoining Landowners supra. See, e.g. supra supra Remedies for Trespass supra. supra see also Adjoining Landowners supra supra

15 . Adjoining Landowners supra supra. See, e.g. supra. Adjoining Landowners supra. See id.

16 de minimis non curat lex See. See See, e.g. de minimis de minimis supra. See, e.g. de minimis de minimis. See, e.g.

17 D. Policy Considerations What s Land Got to Do with It?: Rhetoric and Indeterminacy in Land s Favored Legal Status.. See supra Remedies for Trespass supra. See id.. See id.

18 sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas supra see, e.g. see supra. See, e.g. Williams Bishop

19 . See Williams Bishop See supra Judicial Discretion and the Sunk Costs Strategy of Government Agencies Id.

20 A. Balancing the Equities Restatement (Second) of Torts See, e.g. Limitation for Encroachment Suit is 20, Not Six, Years. See. See supra. See infra Injunctions supra

21 1. Policy Considerations see generally Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes See supra

22 Williams v. South & South Rentals, Inc. Id.. See rev d supra Id.. See id.

23 . See, e.g. supra. See supra See Notes on Balancing the Equities. See id. supra. supra. See id.

24 2. Equities Considered by the Courts See supra. See, e.g. Id. Id. Id.

25 supra See. See id. See Comparative Hardship Doctrine Applied in Easement Action Id. Id. Id. Id.

26 . Adjoining Landowners supra Remedies for Trespass supra. See, e.g.. See, e.g.. See, e.g.. See, e.g

27 . supra Id. See supra supra supra Remedies for Trespass supra See. supra see, e.g. supra

28 B. Encroachments Doctrine Distinguished from the Betterments Doctrine The Rule of Reason in Property Law supra. See supra

29 See id. See id. Id. Id. supra

30 supra See supra. See supra Beacon Homes Pamlico Co. Harrison Rogers Faison

31 C. Application of the Relative Hardship Doctrine in Other States supra supra supra. See supra See supra

32 . See. Golden Press.

33 Id. Id. See also. See Graven Id. Injunctions

34 rev d. AMKCO Id. Id. Id. Id. Id.. Id Id. AMKCO

35 Cafeteria Operators. AMKCO

36 Id.. See. See id.. See, e.g. supra. See infra

37 A. : The Enigma. See supra modified and aff d Id.. Clark. Clark Id. Id.

38 Clark Clark

39 B. The Current Standard: Bishop v. Reinhold Bishop Bishop. See supra. See Clark Clark Clark

40 supra Conrad Conrad Id. Id.. Bishop

41 Bishop. See Williams See Remedies for Trespass supra. See id. Id.

42 Bishop Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co Clark Bishop C. Rationale Applied in North Carolina Encroachment Cases Bishop 1. : Innocent Encroachment of One Square Foot Bishop Bishop modified and aff d see supra Williams Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co. Williams Williams supra

43 Bishop Id.

44 Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co. Bishop Bishop Williams Williams Williams. See supra. Williams Id.

45 2. : A Bridge, an Easement, and a Continuing Trespass

46 Clark Williams Williams Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop William 3. : Innocent Encroachment of Twenty-Two Feet 385 Bishop

47 Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co Clark Clark modified and aff d. Young.

48 Clark Young Young Williams Bishop Williams Bishop 4. : 403 A Fence, an Encroachment, and an Unreasonable Landowner

49 Id.

50 Beacon Homes, Inc. v. Holt Beacon Homes Beacon Homes : Predecessors in Title, No Surveys, and an Encroachment. Mathis Beacon Homes Beacon Homes supra Beacon Homes. See, e.g. Graham II

52 Woodring v. Swieter Woodring Woodring Bishop v. Reinhold Id.. Graham. Compare Graham I with Graham II Bishop. Graham I. Graham I Woodring

53 Bishop Woodring Bishop v. Reinhold Bishop. Graham I Bishop Graham II Bishop. Graham II. Id Williams

54 Bishop v. Reinhold Williams Young Mathis Cornelius Graham. See

55 A. A Simple Rule See Williams. See supra. See supra. See Williams Williams Id. Id.. See Adjoining Landowners supra supra. See supra See Injunctions. Compare Williams with

56 B. Problems Created by the Rule 1. Promotion of Unnecessary Litigation Bishop.. See supra See id. AMKCO. See, e.g. Williams. See, e.g. id.

57 Williams v. South & South Rentals, Inc. McCoy v. Peach Mathis v. Hoffman. See AMKCO. Williams

58 2. Possibility of Extortion and Economic Waste Williams v. South & South Rentals, Inc.. See supra

59 AMKCO. See supra Id. Cafeteria Operators. AMKCO. AMKCO. See supra Id.. See supra

60 Cornelius Bishop Williams AMKCO 3. Measure of Economic Consequences supra. See id.. See. See. See. See id.. Williams see also

61 Bishop Huskins v. Yancey Hospital, Inc. Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co. Huskins Id. Id. Id. See also modified and aff d,. Huskins Id.. Clark. See id. supra

62 C. Leveling the Playing Field Bishop Id.. See, e.g. see Cornelius Young Williams Injunctions supra

63 Huskins v. Yancey Hospital, Inc. supra Id. supra supra supra

64 Williams v. South & South Rentals, Inc.. Id. See see also Williams supra Remedies for Trespass supra

65 Bishop v. Reinhold See also

66 Williams v. South & South Rentals, Inc. Bishop The law is what it is, but it is not what it should be. See see also Williams. Williams Substantive Law supra

TABLE OF CONTENTS [LETTER AGREEMENT]

TABLE OF CONTENTS [LETTER AGREEMENT] The Table of Contents, the footnotes, and the paragraph and subparagraph headings shown in brackets and bold print, are NOT part of the Document, but have been added for the convenience of the reader.