Having trouble identifying a legal principle

Forums: Legal, Property Law
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What is the name (if there is one) of the concept when a defendant has committed a wrong, but the result of the wrong is a monitary benefit to the plaintiff?

Example:

Person A owns a house. Person B trespassess on the property (against the owners expressed order to not trespass). Person B plants a beautiful garden around the gazebo, thus increasing the value of the land. There is no resulting physical damage to the property, and the only "wrong" by Person B was the trespass itself.

What sort of legal remedy would Person A be entitled to? Or if no one knows, a friendly point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated... Very Happy

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,621 • Replies: 8

No top replies

Regular pruning and some sort of program to discourage insects and fungal problems.

Not sure of your legal regime, but I would say that trespass for one thing, whatever you could get for damage to the property and its grounds and something for interference with the 'free and unhindered' enjoyment of the property.

As statutes on trespass are more likely to be criminal, then it will be a criminal matter - a fine or the like. If you managed to get into court the best remedy you could hope for would be for the 'guerilla-gardener' to undo their handiwork and return the area to its previous state. Unless the judge had a very serious thing for the sanctity of private property or gardens you would not get any sort of monetary settlement. And even that might be tossed out in a higher court.

0 Replies

A civil wrong is a tort.

Google: tort "trespass to property"

0 Replies

Re: Having trouble identifying a legal principle

JustanObserver wrote:

What is the name (if there is one) of the concept when a defendant has committed a wrong, but the result of the wrong is a monitary benefit to the plaintiff?

Well, the Romans might call it damnum absque injuria (damages or loss without legal remedy). But in a trespass case, the plaintiff is always entitled to a legal remedy because the trespass itself is considered to be damage to the plaintiff's interests in the property. The plaintiff may be entitled only to nominal damages if the defendant actually improved the land, but he is entitled to damages nonetheless.

0 Replies

Thanks!

0 Replies

If someone has been there long enough to plant a garden and build a gazebo then they have been there long enough to be considered a squatter.

Interesting topic here about if you make improvements it might be considered rent.
http://www.affordableattorneynow.com/squatters-rights.htm

0 Replies

What if our squatter (hypotheically, of course) planted a big, fat crop of some righteous weed?!

0 Replies

Re: Having trouble identifying a legal principle

JustanObserver wrote:

What is the name (if there is one) of the concept when a defendant has committed a wrong, but the result of the wrong is a monitary benefit to the plaintiff?

Example:

Person A owns a house. Person B trespassess on the property (against the owners expressed order to not trespass). Person B plants a beautiful garden around the gazebo, thus increasing the value of the land. There is no resulting physical damage to the property, and the only "wrong" by Person B was the trespass itself.

What sort of legal remedy would Person A be entitled to? Or if no one knows, a friendly point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated...

I don't know law so I don't know the name for that law.

You say, "thus increasing the value of the land."
Whose land? :wink:

If you mean A's then I think B should just talk it out with A as to the trespass. The law remains, but there is no reason why A and B cannot talk it out and reach a compromise. So B should tell A that I will have the garden removed if you so wish and should do that if A so wishes. But I'm sure if it increases the value of A's land then A will say no leave it. I don't think B should talk about any monetary payment for the trespass since he actually improved the value of A's land. If A insists that B remove the garden or pay A some monetary fine, then B would have to do that.

In all this, how exactly was B able to trespass A's property or enhance it I don't really understand. A gazebo assures that a view is there, and garden or no garden the view would still be there if the garden didn't block it. I don't understand how B was able to trespass A's property, it's not clear because B never blocked A's view. It seems to me that you forgot to mention the main point that B erecting the garden around the gazebo actually blocked A's view.

0 Replies

Re: Having trouble identifying a legal principle

JustanObserver wrote:

What is the name (if there is one) of the concept when a defendant has committed a wrong, but the result of the wrong is a monitary benefit to the plaintiff?

Example:

Person A owns a house. Person B trespassess on the property (against the owners expressed order to not trespass). Person B plants a beautiful garden around the gazebo, thus increasing the value of the land. There is no resulting physical damage to the property, and the only "wrong" by Person B was the trespass itself.

What sort of legal remedy would Person A be entitled to? Or if no one knows, a friendly point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated...

The concept is doesn't really have a name, far as I recall. It's kinda related to unjust enrichment, but u.e. is enrichment on the part of the trespasser rather than the one who has suffered the trespass, if I'm remembering Torts class correctly.

The remedy, BTW, is probably a minimal award for a finding of trespass, e. g. what long ago was akin to a peppercorn of consideration. Probably a buck in damages.

0 Replies

Having trouble identifying a legal principle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know