Court Opinion

ID: 9846855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:49:35.055762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:55.958338
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(dissenting)—On reconsideration of this case, I am satisfied that the trial court and this court are engaged in doing equity where the law should prevail.
A person, by building on the property of another, can neither force the owner of the property to sell his property nor to permit a portion of it to be used for a time—short or long.
We cannot divest temporarily or suspend a legal title because of hardship or because it may seem inequitable that a property owner should insist upon his legal rights.
The opinion is correct in pointing out that neither equitable estoppel, laches nor the de minimis rulé affords any relief for Arnold as the trespasser on Melani’s property.
*155The trial court and this court were correct in saying that Melani is not entitled to the equitable remedy of a mandatory injunction to accomplish an inequitable purpose.
That is as far as we should attempt to go; and when the courts (trial and appellate) attempt to carve out an equitable estate of some kind for Arnold so that he can continue in possession of Melani’s property, they transcend their function. I dissent from so much of the opinion as seeks to do so.
Weaver and Neill, JJ., concur with Hill, J.