Vossen v. Forrester

In November 1993, Norman Forrester (defendant) purchased a beachfront lot and planned to build a house there. Forrester’s title report disclosed an easement on the property with reference to a book and page number in county deed records (the easement). Forrester did not know the easement’s actual location, which was on the north portion of his property. Forrester mistakenly believed the easement was on another portion. A community group opposed Forrester’s plans to construct a house, and the group sued him to stop the issuance of a building permit. Forrester prevailed at the trial-court level, and in July 1994, Forrester obtained a building permit. Forrester began building his house, while the community-group litigation went on appeal. As constructed, the house would encroach on about two feet of the easement, and the house was incapable of being removed from the easement without harm to its structural integrity. Four neighboring properties were benefited by the easement. As soon as Forrester began construction, the owners of the neighboring properties (the neighbors) (plaintiffs) suspected that Forrester’s house encroached on the easement. The neighbors did not say or do anything to stop Forrester, expecting that he would be ordered to tear down the house as a result of the community-group litigation. In April 1995, when Forrester’s house was substantially complete, the neighbors sued Forrester, seeking a mandatory injunction requiring him to remove the house and any obstructions from the easement. Forrester argued that the neighbors’ suit was barred by laches, and in any event, an injunction was not an appropriate remedy. The trial court found that laches did not apply. Further, the court determined that Forrester did not know the easement’s location but “should have known” and granted the requested injunction without balancing the hardships between the parties. Forrester appealed.