Property Law: Case Briefs on encroachment from week 1

The Right to Exclude

ENCROACHMENT

Peters v. Archambault

• Facts: Plaintiff requests that defendant remove their structure covering 9 percent of plaintiff’s land.
• History: Decreed, defendant appealed
• Issue: Can the state issue an injunction to remove a structure that the defendant did not create, yet owns? What is the proper remedy?
• Holding: Yes
• Rationale: Current rule provides no reason for exception; previous exceptions have been de minimis. Injunction is the proper remedy.
• Dissent: Plaintiff was aware of the structure’s placement at time of purchase. The parties are capable of resolving the issue w/out court.  

Somerville v. Jacobs

• Facts: Plaintiff built structure on defendant’s land unknowingly; defendant claimed the structure.
• Issue: Can the court award compensation to an improver when by reasonable mistake he builds a structure on land that isn’t his.
• Holding: Yes
• Result: Reversed and remanded.
• Rationale: Application of principle of unjust enrichment has been applied elsewhere, let’s apply it here also.
• Dissent: Party that made mistake should suffer the consequences.
• Rule: If by reasonable mistake, an improver improves a land they do not own, they are entitled to recover.

Property Law: Case briefs on the trespass from week 1

The Right to Exclude

TRESPASS

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes Inc.

• Facts: Defendant delivered a mobile home across the land of plaintiff, against the express volition of plaintiff.
• History: Trial Court for plaintiff, court overruled and wouldn’t award punitive damages because there were no compensatory damages. Plaintiff appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff appealed again.
• Issue: Were the lower courts correct in not awarding punitive damages because no compensatory damages were also awarded?
• Holding: No
• Rule: Punitive damages may be awarded in the case of intentional trespass as determined by the court.
• Rationale: The right to exclude is a fundamental right and needs to be upheld.

Maguire v. Yanke

• Facts: Defendants cattle broke through defendants pasture fence and destroyed the alfalfa crop of plaintiff.
• History: District court for plaintiff, award actual damages but no punitive damages.
• Issue: Can a livestock owner be held liable for damages caused by his livestock to an unfenced area in an open range?
• Holding: No
• Rationale: Idaho is an open range state, herd districts must be formed or fences built. A pseudo-closed range is not actual legal area.
• Rule: Livestock owner is not liable in an open range area.