## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned a small registered oceanfront lot in Marshfield, Massachusetts (about 4,900 square feet) under G.L. c. 185.
- Defendants owned the adjoining registered lot; a house built by defendants’ predecessor partially encroached onto plaintiffs’ lot.
- The house was constructed in 1946 pursuant to a building permit, with a portion located on plaintiffs’ land.
- The encroachment covered about 465 square feet, extending roughly 15 feet 3 inches into plaintiffs’ lot to a depth of about 31 feet 4 inches.
- Neither parties’ certificates of title reflected any easement, right, or other interest benefiting defendants in plaintiffs’ registered land.
- Plaintiffs purchased their lot on June 14, 1966 and discovered the encroachment after obtaining a survey on July 14, 1966.
- The trial judge found removal would be expensive, found no evidence of permission by plaintiffs’ predecessors, and found no estoppel or laches by plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner of registered land is ordinarily entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring removal of a substantial encroachment, even if the encroachment was innocent and removal is costly relative to the owner’s injury.
2. Whether a longstanding encroachment can be treated as creating a prescriptive or equitable right against registered land when the asserted interest is not shown on the certificate of title.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the final decree ordering removal of the encroaching portion of the house.
- The court held that Massachusetts generally grants mandatory equitable relief to remove significant encroachments, notwithstanding innocent mistake and substantial removal expense.
- The court rejected treating the encroachment as an unregistered prescriptive-type interest that could burden registered land absent notation on the certificate.
- The court agreed that no equitable defenses (estoppel or laches) barred relief and that the encroachment was substantial rather than trivial.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts, a landowner is ordinarily entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling removal of a structure that significantly encroaches on the owner’s land, even if the encroachment was unintentional and removal is expensive compared to the owner’s harm.
- For registered land, the certificate of title is intended to reflect the interests burdening the land; unregistered encroachments or prescriptive-type claims generally do not defeat the registered owner’s right to the land as titled.
- Equitable defenses such as estoppel and laches may bar mandatory relief, but require proof of conduct or delay justifying denial; prompt action after discovery supports injunctive relief.
- The magnitude of the encroachment matters; a substantial intrusion onto a small lot supports mandatory removal rather than leaving the encroachment in place.

## Conclusion

The court required removal of a substantial encroachment onto registered land, holding that innocent mistake and high removal cost do not usually defeat a registered owner’s right to mandatory injunctive relief, particularly where the certificate of title shows no interest justifying the encroachment and no equitable defenses are proved.


Peters v. Archambault, 361 Mass. 91, 278 N.E.2d 729 (1972)