Carter v. DONE
276 P.3d 1127
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Carters and Dones own adjacent lots; Carters seek removal of dirt placed on their property during Dones' construction.
- Carters built a four-foot-wide retaining wall on their own land to retain fill; dirt pushed against wall buried the wall and the four-foot strip.
- Rock Hard Construction and Anderson Excavating spread fill dirt on the Dones' lot in January 2004; dirt was pushed up against Carters' wall and onto Carters' lot.
- A temporary injunction was entered in 2004 with an agreement to remove rear dirt; the four-foot column against the wall remained and the Dones completed construction with it in place.
- The district court balanced equities in 2009, awarding Carters $25,000 in lieu of injunctive removal; the district court reasoned based on unjust enrichment and potential costs of removal.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed liability for trespass and affirmed the balancing damages, rejecting arguments that damages were improperly awarded or that prior settlements barred recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for trespass despite no direct act by Dones | Carter argues Dones’ conduct caused and left the trespassing dirt in place. | Dones contend they did not place the dirt nor direct contractors; retained-control theory not satisfied. | Dones liable for continuing trespass by pinning dirt against Carters' wall; liability affirmed. |
| Balancing of equities vs. unjust enrichment claim | Carters sought injunctive relief; damages awarded under balancing not an unjust enrichment claim. | Dones argue remedy improperly shifted from injunction to unjust enrichment. | Balancing-of-equities doctrine properly applied; damages affirmed under that doctrine. |
| Effect of settlements with Rock Hard and Anderson | Settlements might fully compensate Carters for initial trespass. | Settlements cannot be assumed to fully satisfy Carters; record insufficient to show amounts. | Settlements do not preclude the district court’s damages award; lack of settlement details not reversible. |
| Amount of damages supported by record | Damages should reflect diminution in value or cost to cure; $25,000 supported by wall cost and other factors. | Only $319 diminution shown; no support for $25,000. | damages upheld; court properly considered wall cost and overall equities. |
| Whether district court findings were adequately established given transcript-based findings | Finding of fact relied on district court’s oral ruling transcript; should be clarified. | Not explicitly argued; record sufficient for review. | Court affirmance based on the extracted findings; encourages clearer future findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nielsen v. Spencer, 196 P.3d 616 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (heads of tort liability and fault allocation to independent contractors)
- Carrier v. Lindquist, 37 P.3d 1112 (Utah 2001) (balancing of equities and injunctive relief guidance)
- Papanikolas Bros. Enters. v. Sugarhouse Shopping Ctr. Assocs., 535 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1975) (balancing of equities; discretion to deny removal in encroachment cases)
- Walker Drug Co. v. La Sal Oil Co., 972 P.2d 1238 (Utah 1998) (elements and damages in trespass to land; encroachment damages)
- U.P.C., Inc. v. R.O.A. Gen., Inc., 990 P.2d 945 (Utah App. 1999) (trespass duties and removal obligations; absence of duty cannot impose liability)