Hirschfield v. Schwartz

In Hirschfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749, neighbors assumed that a chain link fence between their properties marked their property line. (Id. at p. 755.) In reliance on the assumption, the defendants made several improvements, including extending the fence, building waterfalls, building a koi pond, building a stone deck, and adding a putting green and sand trap. (Ibid.) A later survey revealed that two sections of land used by the defendants were on the plaintiffs' property. (Id. at p. 756.) The trial court found the defendants innocently believed the chain link fence marked their property. (Id. at p. 757.) After visiting the property, the trial court found that the balance of equities tipped in the defendants' favor and allowed the defendants to keep the disputed portion of property and pay damages to the plaintiffs. The appellate court concluded the trial court correctly applied the relative hardship doctrine. "Under this doctrine, once the court determines that a trespass has occurred, the court conducts an equitable balancing to determine whether to grant an injunction prohibiting the trespass, or whether to award damages instead." (Id. at p. 759.) Doubtful cases should be decided against the trespasser. (Ibid.) Among other things, the trespass "must be innocent," i.e., not willful or negligent. (Id. at pp. 759, 761.) The court should also consider the parties' hardships and the encroacher must endure a substantial hardship to defeat an equitable injunction to remove the encroachment. (Id. at p. 761.)