Peters v. Archambault

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth · 1972 · Torts

Tortsencroachmentinjunctionregistered landequitable remediesmandatory injunctionencroachmentregistered land

Facts

The plaintiffs and defendants owned adjoining ocean-front lots in Marshfield, and both lots were registered under G.L. c. 185. The defendants' predecessor obtained a building permit in 1946 and built a house that extended 15 feet 3 inches onto the plaintiffs' lot for a depth of 31 feet 4 inches, occupying 465 square feet of the plaintiffs' approximately 4,900-square-foot lot. Neither certificate of title showed any right in the defendants' lot to use the plaintiffs' land, and the judge found no evidence that the plaintiffs' predecessors had given permission for the encroachment. The encroachment was discovered shortly after the plaintiffs bought their lot in 1966, and the judge found no estoppel or laches by the plaintiffs, although removal would be expensive.

Issue

Whether the owners of registered land were entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring removal of a substantial house encroachment, despite the expense of removal and the absence of intentional wrongdoing by the current defendants.

Rule

In Massachusetts, a landowner ordinarily is entitled to mandatory equitable relief compelling removal of a structure that significantly encroaches on his land, even if the encroachment was unintentional or negligent and removal is costly compared with the plaintiff's injury. Only rare and exceptional circumstances justify denying an injunction and leaving the plaintiff to damages, such as where the encroachment was innocent and removal costs are greatly disproportionate to the injury, where substantial rights can be protected without an injunction, or where an injunction would be oppressive and inequitable; with registered land, recognition of such an encroachment is especially disfavored because it would undermine the land registration system.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Gloucester, Maya Linetti owns a small 5,200-square-foot waterfront lot. Her neighbor, Owen Barrett, hires a contractor who mistakenly extends a new workshop 12 feet onto Maya's land for 28 feet, occupying about 336 square feet; removal would require major reconstruction, and Maya sues promptly after a survey reveals the error.

If a Massachusetts court follows the majority rule of this case, which remedy is most likely?

Explanation. The majority states that in Massachusetts a landowner is ordinarily entitled to mandatory equitable relief requiring removal of a structure that significantly encroaches, even if the encroachment was unintentional or negligent and removal is expensive relative to the plaintiff's injury. This hypothetical presents a substantial invasion of a small lot and prompt suit, with no exceptional facts defeating the ordinary rule.