Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesinjunctionappealtrial
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrial

Related Cases

Goldberg v. R. Grier Miller & Sons, Inc., 408 Pa. 1, 182 A.2d 759
View Case »
Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc., 353 Wis.2d 377, 2014 WI 21, 845 N.W.2d 395
View Case »
Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co., 137 Ill.2d 222, 560 N.E.2d 324, 148 Ill.Dec. 22, 59 USLW 2051, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,590
View Case »
White v. State of Md., 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193
View Case »
Peay v. Curtis Pub. Co., 78 F.Supp. 305
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Amaral v. Cuppels, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 85, 831 N.E.2d 915

Facts

The defendants have owned and operated the Middlebrook Country Club since 1981. The plaintiffs, who moved into homes adjacent to the ninth hole in the late 1990s, experienced frequent intrusions of errant golf balls onto their properties. Despite attempts to negotiate a resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs sought legal relief after the trial court dismissed their nuisance claim, leading to an appeal.

Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court.

Issue

Did the trial court err in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for injunctive relief and damages based on the continuing trespass of golf balls from the defendants' golf course onto the plaintiffs' properties?

Did the trial court err in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for injunctive relief and damages based on the continuing trespass of golf balls from the defendants' golf course onto the plaintiffs' properties?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a continuing and frequent invasion of property constitutes a continuing trespass, which warrants injunctive relief.

Because the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief.

Analysis

The Appeals Court found that the recurrent entry of golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties was a direct invasion of their exclusive possession of land, thus constituting a continuing trespass. The court noted that the defendants had made some efforts to mitigate the issue but concluded that these measures were insufficient to eliminate the ongoing trespass. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' prior knowledge of the golf course's proximity did not negate their right to relief for trespass.

The fact that the defendants have not worsened the condition, and have taken modest steps to correct it, does not pose a particular contrast with the circumstances in Fenton. The Fenton defendant erected a fence twenty-four feet high in an effort to stop the flight of golf balls onto the plaintiffs' property, a more significant and effective measure than any steps the defendants have taken in the present case.

Conclusion

The Appeals Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for the entry of a new judgment declaring the golf balls' projection onto the plaintiffs' properties as a continuing trespass, along with an injunction against such trespass.

The judgment of dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a new judgment, declaring that the projection of golf balls from the defendants' property onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, and enjoining the trespass.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the Appeals Court recognized their right to relief from the continuing trespass of golf balls onto their properties.

The Appeals Court, Green, J., held that the continuing and frequent invasion of golf balls from private golf course onto homeowners' properties constituted a continuing trespass.

You must be