## Facts

- A nonprofit foundation owned waterfront land maintained as a free public park in Narragansett, Rhode Island.
- The foundation’s trustees were subject to obligations to keep the property as a free public park, with significant financial consequences if the use changed.
- An adjacent landowner, through a corporation, planned and constructed a residence after relying on professionals (engineers/surveyors) and municipal approvals.
- After the house was substantially completed, a survey obtained for a prospective buyer showed the residence was built entirely on the foundation’s land.
- The encroachment covered about 13,000 square feet, roughly six percent of the park property.
- The foundation demanded removal; defendants offered compensation and effectively proposed keeping the structure in place by acquiring the occupied area.
- The foundation sued for continuing trespass and sought a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the residence.

## Issues

1. Whether constructing and maintaining a residence entirely on another’s land constitutes a continuing trespass.
2. Whether the proper remedy for a substantial continuing trespass is a mandatory injunction requiring removal, or whether equitable considerations require limiting relief to damages or a compelled conveyance.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the foundation.
- The Court held the residence’s placement on the foundation’s property constituted a continuing trespass.
- The Court upheld a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to remove the house.
- The Court rejected defendants’ request for a damages-only remedy or an order effectively forcing the foundation to convey the encroached portion.
- The Court held the trial court was not required to balance the equities before granting injunctive relief for continuing trespass, though narrow exceptions may apply in exceptional cases.

## Legal Principles

- In Rhode Island, the ordinary remedy for a continuing trespass is injunctive relief.
- A trial court is not required, as a matter of law, to conduct a balancing-of-hardships analysis before granting an injunction for continuing trespass.
- Equitable denial of injunctive relief is limited to exceptional circumstances making coercive relief inequitable or oppressive (e.g., acquiescence, laches, or a truly de minimis intrusion).
- A substantial encroachment—particularly a permanent residential structure occupying a meaningful portion of another’s land—supports mandatory injunctive relief rather than forced sale or damages.
- The unique character and dedicated public/charitable use of land may weigh strongly against remedies that would compel a transfer or reallocate property rights.

## Conclusion

The Court affirmed a mandatory injunction ordering removal of a residence built entirely on a public park property, reaffirming that continuing trespass ordinarily warrants injunctive relief in Rhode Island and that courts are not required to balance equities absent exceptional circumstances.


Rose Nulman Park Found. v. Four Twenty Corp., 93 A.3d 25 (R.I. 2014)