Hoffman v. Bob Law, Inc.

#27748-aff in pt & rev in part-SLZ
2016 S.D. 94
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
KENNETH HOFFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
BOB LAW, INC. and
BOB LAW, individually, Defendants and Appellants.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
YANKTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE CHERYLE W. GERING
Judge
****
DANIEL K. BRENDTRO
DENNIS DUNCAN
AMANDA W. ENGEL of
Zimmer, Duncan & Cole, LLP
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.
MARK D. FITZGERALD
RONALD E. TEMPLE of
Fitzgerald, Vetter, Temple & Bartell
Norfolk, Nebraska Attorneys for defendants
and appellants.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON OCTOBER 3, 2016
OPINION FILED 12/14/16
#27748
ZINTER, Justice
[¶1.] A homeowner whose fixtures encroached on adjoining landowner’s
property sued for an implied easement to keep the encroachments on the adjoining
property. The adjoining landowner counterclaimed for trespass and sought a
mandatory injunction to compel removal of the encroachments. The circuit court
denied the homeowner’s claim for an implied easement. On the adjoining
landowner’s counterclaim, the court ruled the encroachments constituted a
trespass. Nevertheless, the court denied the adjoining landowner’s request for a
mandatory injunction to remove the encroachments. The court awarded the
adjoining landowner nominal damages and ordered removal if the encroachments
became subject to relocation in the future. Adjoining landowner appeals the denial
of its request for the mandatory injunction and the order allowing the
encroachments to remain until they are relocated in the future. We affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2.] Bob Law, Inc. (the “Corporation”), owned by Bob Law, is an excavation
and land development company that owned a real estate development west of
Yankton known as the Crestview Addition. The Corporation entered into an
agreement with Rick DeJager to jointly develop Crestview. DeJager was the
general contractor responsible for the construction and sale of the homes and lots.
The Corporation was to grade the roads and do all the dirt and excavation work.
The development was surveyed, and seven pins were placed to mark the boundaries
of Lot 3. The pin marking the southwest corner of the lot was subsequently lost.
-1-
#27748
Lot 3 is burdened by a ten foot utility easement on the west side. The Corporation
owns the unplatted lot west of Lot 3, which is referred to by the parties as Lot 4.
[¶3.] Construction on Lot 3 began in October 2003 when the Corporation
still owned the lot. The Corporation excavated the basement for a house and it
graded a dirt driveway. Due to construction difficulties, the Corporation placed the
basement twenty feet west of its planned location. 1 In November 2003, the
Corporation directed an electrical contractor to place a transformer on the property
line between Lots 3 and 4. However, the transformer was mistakenly placed on Lot
4, outside of the utility easement, fourteen feet west of the property line. Both the
Corporation and DeJager continued building under the mistaken belief that the
transformer marked the property line.
[¶4.] After the basement was excavated, the Corporation roughed in a water
line. A septic system was also installed. The parties disputed when the system was
installed and who installed it. After the Corporation conveyed Lot 3 to DeJager and
his wife on December 30, 2003, DeJager installed a concrete retaining wall, concrete
pad, and lamp pole. 2 He also poured concrete for the driveway that had been
graded by the Corporation. Parts or all of these improvements were mistakenly
located on Lot 4 instead of Lot 3. DeJager and his wife lived in the home until 2009
1. DeJager testified that he raised concerns to Law about the septic tank
location after moving the basement. According to DeJager, Law replied, “I
own this land.”
2. At some point a propane tank was installed on the concrete pad; however, the
court did not determine who installed it.
-2-
#27748
or 2010 when they defaulted on their loan and declared bankruptcy. Lot 3 was
subsequently conveyed to the bank that held the mortgage.
[¶5.] In May 2011, Appellee Kenneth Hoffman entered into an agreement to
purchase Lot 3 from the bank. Although Hoffman could have had the lot surveyed
at no expense, he was in a hurry to close on the home and decided to forego a
survey. Closing took place on June 10. Hoffman testified that the day after closing,
Law contacted Hoffman and informed him that there was an encroachment on Lot
4. 3 The two met on June 12. Law measured the property lines and noted the
encroachments on Lot 4. After the meeting, Law proposed to move the septic
system’s leach field for $150,000 and sell Hoffman an easement for the septic tank
for $25,000. 4 Hoffman testified that when he did not immediately accept this
proposal, Law threatened to dig out the septic system.
[¶6.] Hoffman obtained a temporary restraining order (and later a
preliminary injunction) prohibiting Law and the Corporation from removing the
septic system. Hoffman’s underlying complaint claimed that he had acquired an
implied easement on Lot 4 for the encroachments. The Corporation counterclaimed
for trespassing. 5 The Corporation sought money damages (rental value and
diminution in value of the lot) as well as a mandatory injunction to remove the
encroachments.
3. Law claimed he did not learn of any encroachments until June 11.
4. Moving the septic system would require the removal of twelve to fifteen feet
of dirt, installing a lift station, and landscaping a sloped area.
5. Although the complaint and counterclaim included Bob Law as a defendant,
he was only a party for purposes of the temporary restraining order.
-3-
#27748
[¶7.] A two-day court trial was held in December 2015. A survey showed
that the septic tank, propane tank, concrete pad for the propane tank, lamp pole,
and portions of the concrete retaining wall and driveway encroached on a small
portion of Lot 4. The circuit court found that the septic system was installed by the
Corporation before the lot was conveyed to DeJager and that DeJager installed the
other encroachments.
[¶8.] The court denied Hoffman’s claim for an implied easement, a ruling
that he does not appeal. 6 On the Corporation’s counterclaim, the court ruled that
the encroachments constituted a trespass. But because the Corporation failed to
present evidence of damages, 7 the court awarded $1 in nominal damages. The court
also denied the Corporation’s request for an injunction. It reasoned that the
Corporation had an adequate remedy at law (damages); the encroachments were on
a small sliver of land that could not be used due to the utility easement; Hoffman
did not install the encroaching items; and the cost to remove the encroachments
would be disproportionate to any benefit to be gained by the Corporation. The court
6. The court considered the claim as a request for an implied easement for prior
use. See Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC, 2003 S.D. 12, ¶ 14,
657 N.W.2d 300, 305. The court denied the request relating to the septic
system because when unity of title was severed upon conveyance of Lot 3 to
DeJager, the use of the septic system was not “so long continued and so
obvious as to show that it was meant to be permanent.” The court denied the
request for an implied easement for the remaining encroachments because
those encroachments were not in place, and thus not in use, at the time unity
of title was severed when the Corporation conveyed Lot 3 to DeJager.
7. The Corporation claimed diminution in value damages relating to Lot 4. Law
testified that he received an offer of $65,000 for the property, far below his
asking price of $140,000. The circuit court did not find this damage evidence
credible. The Corporation’s attorney conceded in closing argument that no
evidence of actual damages was presented.
-4-
#27748
further ordered that the encroachments would not be subject to a current or future
court order of removal; but if the encroachments were subject to relocation by
Hoffman or his successors in interest, they would have to be removed from Lot 4
and relocated on Lot 3.
[¶9.] The Corporation appeals. It argues that the circuit court erred in
denying an injunction requiring Hoffman to remove the encroachments. It also
argues that nominal damages are an inadequate remedy and the court should not
have allowed the encroachments to remain. We first address the court’s denial of
the Corporation’s request for an injunction compelling removal of the
encroachments. We then address the court’s remedy: an award of nominal damages
and allowing the encroachments to temporarily remain.
Decision
Injunctive Relief
[¶10.] We recently clarified our standard of review for the grant or denial of
an injunction. Magner v. Brinkman, 2016 S.D. 50, ¶ 19, 883 N.W.2d 74, 82-83. We
first determine whether an injunction was statutorily authorized under SDCL 21-8-
14, a question of law we review de novo. Id. ¶ 19, 883 N.W.2d at 83. If the
injunction was authorized, “the court’s subsequent decision to grant or deny the
injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Id. An abuse of discretion is an
error of law or “discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and
evidence.” Stahl v. Pollman, 2006 S.D. 51, ¶ 9, 716 N.W.2d 794, 796. Findings of
fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Strong v. Atlas Hydraulics, Inc.,
2014 S.D. 69, ¶ 10, 855 N.W.2d 133, 138.
-5-
#27748
[¶11.] The Corporation contends that it was statutorily entitled to a
mandatory injunction compelling removal of the encroachments. Under SDCL 21-8-
14(1), an injunction may be granted if “pecuniary compensation would not afford
adequate relief.” Generally, when structures encroach on private property,
pecuniary compensation will not afford adequate relief to the landowner. That is
because denying an injunction to remove an encroachment and awarding money
damages amounts to private eminent domain, and “no one should be permitted to
take land of another merely because he is willing to pay a market price for it.” 1
Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 5.10(4), at 816 (2d ed. 1993); see also Kratze v.
Indep. Order of Oddfellows, 500 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Mich. 1993); Graham v. Deutsche
Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 768 S.E.2d 614, 617 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015); Williams v. S. & S.
Rentals, Inc., 346 S.E.2d 665, 668-69 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). Further, in such cases,
the encroacher could obtain a property right by adverse possession, which could
result in a complete loss of title. See SDCL 15-3-13; Underhill v. Mattson, 2016 S.D.
69, ¶¶ 11-17, 886 N.W.2d 348, 352-54. Because pecuniary compensation often fails
to provide adequate relief in encroachment cases, we hold that the injunction was
authorized. See Graven v. Backus, 163 N.W.2d 320, 325 (N.D. 1968) (“The general
rule is that a mandatory injunction is a proper remedy to invoke against an
adjoining landowner to compel him to remove an encroachment.”).
[¶12.] Authorization for an injunction does not, however, equate with
entitlement to an injunction. In determining whether to grant or deny an
injunction, a number of factors are considered, including:
(1) Did the party to be enjoined cause the damage? (2) Would
irreparable harm result without the injunction because of lack of
an adequate and complete remedy at law? (3) Is the party to be
-6-
#27748
enjoined acting in bad faith or is the injury-causing behavior an
innocent mistake? (4) In balancing the equities, is the hardship
to be suffered by the enjoined party disproportionate to the
benefit to be gained by the injured party?
Strong, 2014 S.D. 69, ¶ 11, 855 N.W.2d at 138.
[¶13.] Here, with respect to the first and third factors, the circuit court found
that Hoffman did not cause the damage and he was not acting in bad faith. The
record supports these findings. The evidence reflects that the Corporation was
responsible for the location of the septic system and that the remaining
encroachments were installed by the Corporation’s development partner, DeJager.
Further, we agree with the circuit court’s finding that Hoffman’s failure to obtain a
survey did not constitute bad faith.
[¶14.] With respect to the second factor, for the reasons previously expressed,
see supra ¶ 11, pecuniary compensation would not have afforded adequate relief.
Neither damages nor ejectment will afford the landowner adequate relief in most
cases. 1 Dobbs, supra, § 5.10(4), at 815-16. Encroaching structures pose the threat
of adverse possession. Without an injunction, a trespasser may eventually obtain
title, which is an injury that “go[es] to the destruction of the estate.” See Beatty v.
Smith, 14 S.D. 24, 84 N.W. 208, 210 (1900); see also In re Estate of Siebrasse,
2002 S.D. 118, ¶ 9, 652 N.W.2d 384, 386 (noting the availability of an equitable
remedy because land is unique); O’Hagan v. United States, 86 F.3d 776, 783
(8th Cir. 1996) (“More fundamentally, monetary relief fails to provide adequate
compensation for an interest in real property, which by its very nature is considered
unique.”). Thus, the second factor weighs in favor of granting an injunction.
-7-
#27748
[¶15.] However, the fourth factor plays the dominant role in encroachment
cases. Because of their effect on real property interests, encroachments have “posed
special problems and produced special solutions.” 1 Dobbs, supra, § 5.10(4), at 815.
On the one hand, “no one should be permitted to take land of another merely
because he is willing to pay a market price for it.” Id. at 816; see also Kratze,
500 N.W.2d at 120; Graham, 768 S.E.2d at 617; Williams, 346 S.E.2d at 668-69. On
the other hand, requiring removal of an encroachment may constitute economic
waste if the encroaching structure must be destroyed. 1 Dobbs, supra, § 5.10(4),
at 816. Thus, the “dominant approach in the encroachment cases is to balance the
relative hardships and equities and to grant or deny the injunction as the balance
may seem to indicate.” Id. The balancing of equities “encourages the denial of
injunctive relief where the expense or hardship to be suffered by the [trespasser] is
disproportionate to the small benefit to be gained by the injured party.” Foley v.
City of Yankton, 89 S.D. 160, 166, 230 N.W.2d 476, 479 (1975). A court may deny
an injunction if the hardship to the trespasser—e.g., the cost to remove the
encroachment and loss of value to the remaining structure—is disproportionate to
any benefit gained by the landowner. Graven, 163 N.W.2d at 325; 1 Dobbs, supra,
§ 5.10(4), at 818; see also Harksen v. Peska, 1998 S.D. 70, ¶ 33, 581 N.W.2d 170, 176
(holding it would be inequitable to compel removal of a $100,000 home that violated
a restrictive covenant but did not inflict any damages on other landowner, even
though home builder was on notice of the restrictive covenant).
[¶16.] In balancing the equities relating to the septic system, the circuit court
found that “the hardship that would be suffered by Mr. Hoffman is disproportionate
to any benefit to be gained by Bob Law, Inc., or Bob Law in ordering the removal of”
-8-
#27748
the septic system. 8 The record supports this finding. The court found it would have
cost $150,000 to move the leach field and $25,000 for an easement to keep the septic
tank where it was. The court also found that this encroachment was on a “small
sliver of land” and that “clearly there [was] no way that anything [could] be built in
that corner” because of the utility lines. “[N]either extortion nor economic waste
that may be entailed in destroying a structure is desirable.” 1 Dobbs, supra,
§ 5.10(4), at 816. Additionally, Hoffman played no role in contributing to this
encroachment. The court specifically found that the Corporation excavated the hole
for the septic tank at its current location while Lot 3 was still owned by the
Corporation. 9 Whether the landowner contributed to the encroachment is a factor
to be taken into consideration. See id. at 817. Balancing all of the relevant factors,
we agree that the hardship to be suffered by Hoffman in removing this
encroachment that the Corporation created is disproportionate to any harm that
would be suffered by the Corporation. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion
in denying an injunction to remove the septic system.
8. The Corporation contends that the relative-hardship test should not apply
because Hoffman acted willfully and with full knowledge of the Corporation’s
rights and the consequences that might ensue. See Foley, 89 S.D. at 166,
230 N.W.2d at 479. However, the circuit court specifically found that
Hoffman did not act in bad faith, and the record does not support the
Corporation’s factual assertion regarding Hoffman’s knowledge.
9. The Corporation denies excavating the hole for the septic tank prior to
conveying the property to DeJager. However, there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support the court’s contrary finding. The Corporation did all the
dirt work on the property, and DeJager testified that he did not dig the hole
for placement of the septic tank. Law also signed a receipt for a septic tank
on November 19, 2003, around the same time the Corporation finished
digging the basement.
-9-
#27748
[¶17.] The Corporation contends that even if the septic system need not be
removed, Hoffman should still be required to remove the lamp pole, concrete pad,
propane tank, and encroaching portions of the concrete retaining wall and
driveway. The Corporation correctly points out that the circuit court did not
balance the relative hardships and equities to remove these encroachments. 10 And
the injunction should only be denied if there is disproportionality. See Clear Lake
Riviera Cmty. Ass’n v. Cramer, 105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 815, 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
(“[T]he hardship to the [trespasser] from granting the injunction ‘must be greatly
disproportionate to the hardship caused [landowner] by the continuance of the
encroachment and this fact must clearly appear in the evidence and must be proved
by the [trespasser].’”).
[¶18.] In this case, removal of the remaining encroachments may be unlike
the removal of an entire building or structure at an enormous and disproportionate
expense. Compare Amkco, Ltd. v. Welborn, 21 P.3d 24, 29 (N.M. 2001) (denying
removal when removal would result in loss of $188,837 in expenses, plus annual
profits, and a $1,250,000 project when value of encroached land was $14,700), and
Graven, 163 N.W.2d at 326 (denying removal when cost to remove and rebuild
encroachment was $5,300 and value of the portion of land encroached on was
between $8.50 and $9.00), with The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 936 P.2d 1309, 1313-
14 (Idaho 1997) (affirming grant of injunction to remove portion of driveway and
10. It appears the circuit court rested its decision primarily on its finding that
the Corporation had an adequate remedy at law. The court did not consider
the effect that the encroachments had on the Corporation’s property interests
when balancing the equities, see supra ¶ 16, and instead found that the
parties were “at least on equal footing.”
-10-
#27748
landscaping when homeowner “would not suffer a loss of value due to removal of the
encroachment”), and Royse v. Easter Seal Soc’y for Crippled Children & Adults, Inc.,
256 N.W.2d 542, 546 (N.D. 1977) (stating injunction is proper remedy for
encroachment over three-quarters of an easement that significantly decreased
easement’s value). See also Harksen, 1998 S.D. 70, ¶ 33, 581 N.W.2d at 176. The
remaining encroachments are separate from the main structure, and some might be
removed without loss of enjoyment or damage to the home. Further, there is
evidence that both parties were at least somewhat aware of the encroachments
prior to June 10, 2011, when Hoffman purchased the property; and Hoffman was, in
the court’s words, negligent in failing to have a survey conducted before purchasing
the property. See 1 Dobbs, supra, § 5.10(4), at 817 (“Even if the [trespasser] is
merely negligent, that will weigh as one factor against him and in favor of the
mandatory injunction.”). 11 Although we express no opinion on the weight to be
given to these factors, we reverse and remand because the circuit court did not
balance the equities and hardships, which is the dominant consideration for this
type of case. On remand, the court should balance the equities on the existing
record relating to the lamp pole, concrete pad, propane tank, and encroaching
portions of the retaining wall and driveway.
11. The Corporation argues that negligence is equivalent to bad faith. The
Corporation, however, relies on inapposite cases involving insurance or the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Moreover, the parties have not
briefed the question whether the failure to order a survey constitutes
negligence. Consequently, we express no opinion on that issue. We leave
these issues to the circuit court on remand.
-11-
#27748
Encroachment Remedy—Nominal Damages and Allowing an Encroachment to
Temporarily Remain
[¶19.] In addition to its argument claiming entitlement to injunctive relief,
the Corporation argues that the court lacked the legal power to award Hoffman an
“effective injunction” prohibiting removal of the encroachments 12 while only
awarding the Corporation nominal damages. The Corporation contends that the
circuit court’s denial of Hoffman’s claim for an implied easement and the court’s
conclusion that damages were an adequate remedy at law 13 deprived the court of
jurisdiction to grant Hoffman any equitable relief. We disagree.
[¶20.] It is recognized that the appropriate remedy in encroachment cases
may include permitting encroachments to remain such that the trespasser obtains
an equitable easement. See Amkco, 21 P.3d at 29; 3 Tiffany Real Property § 815.50,
Westlaw (3d ed.) (database updated Sept. 2016). Where a court refuses to order
removal of encroachments after balancing the equities, the encroaching party
receives an easement so that the landowner “can recover possession of the land in
the event that the structure is removed in the future.” Amkco, 21 P.3d at 29; see
also Christensen v. Tucker, 250 P.2d 660, 665 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1952) (holding
12. The Corporation claims that the circuit court’s order prohibited removal of
the encroachments. However, the circuit court’s final written judgment did
not prohibit removal. The court’s judgment provides that the encroachments
are “not subject to a court order of removal now or in the future” unless they
are subject to relocation by Hoffman or his successors in interest.
13. For the reasons stated supra ¶ 11, we disagree with the circuit court’s
conclusion that the Corporation had an adequate remedy at law that
precluded injunctive relief. Our disagreement does not, however, affect the
remedies available to Hoffman. Those remedies are discussed infra ¶ 20.
-12-
#27748
trespasser should be granted an easement rather than quiet title); 1 Dobbs, supra,
§ 5.10(4), at 818. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
order removal of the septic system, which effectively granted Hoffman a temporary
easement that will remain in effect until the encroachment is relocated by Hoffman
or his successors in interest. The court also did not err in awarding only nominal
damages. As the court noted, the Corporation failed to introduce any credible
evidence of damages; i.e., diminution in value, rental value, or any other measure of
past and future damages as a result of the encroachments. See Zerr v. Heceta Lodge
No. 111, 523 P.2d 1018, 1024-25 (Or. 1974) (reversing an order requiring removal of
encroachment and affirming the award of nominal damages for the resulting
easement where landowners offered insufficient evidence of actual damages).
Conclusion
[¶21.] With respect to the septic system, the circuit court did not err in
denying an injunction to remove it, allowing it to temporarily remain, and awarding
nominal damages. Hoffman would suffer disproportionate hardship if he were
compelled to remove the septic system, and the Corporation failed to introduce
evidence of actual damages. However, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of
the remaining encroachments. On remand, the court should balance the relative
hardship and equities relating to those encroachments.
[¶22.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SEVERSON, WILBUR, and KERN,
Justices, concur.
-13-