## Facts

- Rylands and Reid owned adjoining residential and rental property on West Colfax Avenue in Jefferson County, Colorado.
- Golden Press, Inc. owned the adjacent lot and constructed a one-story brick and cinder block commercial building.
- A survey showed the building’s west wall was about two inches inside Golden Press’s line at the south end and on the line at the north end.
- The building’s subsurface foundation and footings extended onto plaintiffs’ land by approximately two to three and one-half inches along the wall’s length, several feet below the surface.
- Plaintiffs alleged additional construction-related trespasses (damage to a garage roof, flower bed, fence, and driveway; entry and digging on their land).
- Plaintiffs also alleged recurring trespass by customers’ vehicles crossing their property due to parking directions and signage.
- The encroached strip had small monetary value, and the above-ground wall did not extend over the boundary.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity should issue a mandatory injunction requiring removal of a slight, unintentional subsurface encroachment when it does not materially affect the neighbor’s use and removal would impose severe hardship compared to the small injury.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decree granting a mandatory injunction and remanded.
- The court held that mandatory removal is not automatic for every encroachment.
- The court concluded the encroachment was slight, unintentional, and did not interfere with plaintiffs’ present or reasonably anticipated use.
- The court determined the injury was small and readily compensable in money, while the expense and disruption of removal would be grossly disproportionate.

## Legal Principles

- A mandatory injunction to remove an encroachment may be denied when the encroachment is unintentional and slight, causes minimal interference, and monetary compensation is adequate.
- Equity may refuse injunctive relief where the burden of removal would be grossly disproportionate to the plaintiff’s injury.
- Good faith is presumed absent contrary proof; a non-willful encroachment weakens the case for mandatory injunctive relief.
- Delay in seeking injunctive relief after observing construction may weigh against a mandatory injunction.
- When legal damages can provide adequate relief, equity may decline a drastic remedy such as demolition or structural alteration.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a rigid rule requiring removal of every encroachment and applied a relative-hardship analysis, holding that a slight, inadvertent subsurface intrusion that causes minimal, compensable harm does not justify a mandatory injunction imposing severe and disproportionate removal costs.


Golden Press, Inc. v. Rylands, 124 Colo. 122, 235 P.2d 592 (Colo. 1951)