Opinion ID: 1548679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Injunction Against Nye

Text: A party seeking injunctive relief `must demonstrate that it stands to suffer some irreparable harm that is presently threatened or imminent and for which no adequate legal remedy exists to restore that plaintiff to its rightful position.' National Lumber & Building Materials Co. v. Langevin, 798 A.2d 429, 434 (R.I.2002) (quoting Fund for Community Progress v. United Way of Southeastern New England, 695 A.2d 517, 521 (R.I. 1997)). Irreparable injury must be either `presently threatened' or `imminent'; injuries that are prospective only and might never occur cannot form the basis of a permanent injunction. Id. (quoting Rhode Island Turnpike & Bridge Authority v. Cohen, 433 A.2d 179, 182 (R.I.1981)). Nye argues that there is no support for the permanent injunction imposed on him because [t]here was no evidence that [he] ha[d] ever trespassed on the Brousseau property beyond the point that the Court agreed had become part of the Nye property. Therefore, he maintains that he presents no actual threat of imminent irreparable injury. We agree with Nye that the injunction against him is unnecessary. When reviewing the grant or denial of a permanent injunction, we will reverse the lower court on appeal only `when it can be shown that the trial justice misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material evidence or made factual findings that were clearly wrong.' Holden v. Salvadore, 964 A.2d 508, 512-13 (R.I.2009) (quoting Renaissance Development Corp. v. Universal Properties Group. Inc., 821 A.2d 233, 236 (R.I.2003)). Currently, the amended final judgment reflects the boundary description as submitted by Nye in accordance with the trial justice's decision. Whatever imminent injury that the trial justice may have perceived at the time that he issued the injunction does not exist at this time, because the portion of the property that the Brousseaus challenged now belongs to Nye. This has been the case since the trial justice approved Nye's legal description of the boundary in accordance with the decision and incorporated it into the amended final judgment. As a result, there no longer is any imminent threat that Nye will trespass on the Brousseaus' property. Thus, we hold that the permanent injunction that continues to be in force against Nye is no longer called for, and that it should have been vacated when the trial justice approved Nye's submitted legal description of the boundary.