OneLBriefs

Geragosian v. Union Realty Co.

In 1927 a theatre was built in Somerville by Vartigian. The rear of the land adjoined Aaronian's land.
Vartigian conveyed his interest in the theatre to Union Realty Co. Then, he had a dispute with Union Realty about a candy stand he and his wife operated in the theatre.

So, knowing that some of the theatre's structures trespassed on Aaronian's land, Vartigian had his wife's step-brother buy Aaron's land and then sue Union Realty.

P, the step-brother who owned the land, sought an injunction against Union Realty for the removal of trespassing structures.

Platform of the fire escape overhangs by 11 inches.
Drain from the theatre runs about 53 feet through the unoccupied rear part of the land. It is 8 feet underground.

Neither of these interfere with the present use of the land, which is parking garage.

The cost of a new drain would be $4300, and the fire escape issue could be fixed easily.

Issues

Is the fact that an aggrieved landowner suffers little or no damage from the trespass and that the trespasser acted in good faith sufficient reasons for denying an injunction for trespass?

Holding/Rule

The fact that the aggrieved landowner suffers little or no damage from the trespass and that the wrongdoer acted in good faith are not reasons for denying an injunction for trespass.

Reasoning

The right of property that the P seeks to protect is legal, not merely equitable.
These type of suits have been allowed based on the danger that the trespass will ripen into an adverse possession claim.
However, there is a deeper, more basic reason for the protection of the right to injunction for trespass. It is that a particular piece of real estate cannot be replaced by any sum of money, and one who wants a particular estate for a specific use, if deprived of his right, cannot be remedied with any sum of money.
Therefore, a title to real estate will be protected by a court of equity by a decree which will preserve to the owner the property itself, instead of a sum of money representing its value.
The fact that the aggrieved landowner suffers little or no damage from the trespass and that the wrongdoer acted in good faith are not reasons for denying an injunction for trespass.
The only times an injunction might be denied is if there is some estoppel or laches on the part of the P, or if P refuses to consent to acts necessary to the removal or abatement that he demands.
The motives of Vartigian cannot impair the property rights of Geragosian.

Dissent

Notes

Different from the Pile v. Pedrick rule because it allows that an injunction can be denied if P won't consent to "acts necessary to the removal . . . that he demands. Under the Geragosian rule, the P in Pile would have had to let the D onto his land to remove the infringing stones or else damages, rather than an injunction, would have been assessed.