Pull v. Barnes case brief summary
350 P.2d 828 (1960)
CASE FACTS
After the adjoining landowners built a cabin on land they believed they owned, the landowners asserted dominion over the cabin. The adjoining landowners brought an action to determine the boundary line between the parties' properties and for other relief. The trial court determined the boundary line of the properties, found that the cabin was entirely within the land owned by the landowners, and held that the Golden Press doctrine and the doctrine of estoppel were inapplicable. The trial court entered judgment for the landowners.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the trial court's judgment with directions to the trial court to hold a further hearing to determine whether it would be practical and feasible for the adjoining landowners to remove the cabin from the land, and if so to specify the conditions under which it could be done; if removal of the cabin was not feasible, then the value thereof was to be determined and the land subjected to a lien in favor of the adjoining landowners.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
350 P.2d 828 (1960)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff adjoining landowners appealed
from the judgment of the District Court, First Judicial District
(Colorado), which was entered for defendant landowners in an action
to determine the boundary line between properties owned by the
adjoining landowner and the landowners, and for damages and other
relief.CASE FACTS
After the adjoining landowners built a cabin on land they believed they owned, the landowners asserted dominion over the cabin. The adjoining landowners brought an action to determine the boundary line between the parties' properties and for other relief. The trial court determined the boundary line of the properties, found that the cabin was entirely within the land owned by the landowners, and held that the Golden Press doctrine and the doctrine of estoppel were inapplicable. The trial court entered judgment for the landowners.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed, holding that:
- (1) the trial court was correct in determining that the Golden Press doctrine was inapplicable because the problems arising from the situation were not due to bad faith on the part of any of the parties; and
- (2) the trial court erred in granting judgment for the landowners because it was the trial court's duty to grant the relief in equity that the situation demanded and the adjoining owners, who had in good faith erected improvements on the landowners' property, had a right to remove the improvements if feasible and if not, they were entitled to an equitable lien on the property for the value of the improvements.
The court reversed the trial court's judgment with directions to the trial court to hold a further hearing to determine whether it would be practical and feasible for the adjoining landowners to remove the cabin from the land, and if so to specify the conditions under which it could be done; if removal of the cabin was not feasible, then the value thereof was to be determined and the land subjected to a lien in favor of the adjoining landowners.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment