Rose Nulman Park Foundation, by its Trustees, Carol B. Nulman and Joel S. Nulman v. Four Twenty Corp.
2014 R.I. LEXIS 87
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Foundation owns 1460 Ocean Road in Narragansett, established to maintain a public park open for recreation and contemplation.
- 2008 settlement obligates Trustees to pay $1,500,000 to NY Presbyterian Hospital if the Park is used contrary to its designated use.
- Lamoureux, president/owner of Four Twenty Corp., built a house on a neighboring lot with a site plan from Carrigan Engineering that allegedly showed the boundary incorrectly.
- The structure encroached about 13,000 square feet (roughly 6% of the Nulman property), discovered during a prospective sale, leading to the Foundation’s suit for a mandatory injunction to remove it.
- Trial court found the encroachment not de minimis, ordered removal within 180 days, and found removal proper despite defendants’ reliance on the survey; upon appeal, Supreme Court affirmed.
- Court remanded with directions for a reasonable compliance period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing trespass warrants injunctive relief without balancing equities | Nulman argues injunctive relief follows from continuing trespass | Lamoureux argues balance of equities required | Yes; injunction appropriate without balancing in absence of exceptional circumstances |
| Whether the encroachment is de minimis | Encroachment is substantial and not de minimis | Encroachment could be considered de minimis | Not de minimis; 13,000 sq ft encroachment significant |
| Whether balancing the equities was required or proper | Not required but properly considered | Trial court should have balanced before granting relief | Balancing not required but court properly weighed equities; relief affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santilli v. Morelli, 102 R.I. 333 (R.I. 1967) (continuing trespass warrants injunctive relief; exceptional circumstances may override)
- Cullen v. Tarini, 15 A.3d 968 (R.I. 2011) (balancing equities not required in some injunctions; discretionary relief)
- Adams v. Toro, 508 A.2d 399 (R.I. 1986) (balancing may be used in exceptional cases; coercive relief may be appropriate)
- Renaissance Development Corp. v. Universal Properties Group, Inc., 821 A.2d 233 (R.I. 2003) (injunctions when land ownership rights are in play; improper encroachment)
- Bentley v. Root, 19 R.I. 205 (1895) (acquiescence or minor encroachment can bar injunctive relief)