## Facts

- Mary L. Yeakel and John and Mary Driscoll owned adjoining halves of a double home in Allentown, Pennsylvania, separated by a party wall; their rear porches were divided by a cinder block wall.
- The Driscolls obtained a city building permit to enclose their rear porch; the permit required a firewall along the boundary area and replacement of decayed courses of cinder block.
- The Driscolls constructed the firewall by erecting it on the preexisting cinder block wall between the porches.
- Before construction, John Driscoll discussed the project with Yeakel’s son, who lived at the property and had previously owned it; the Driscolls believed he was the owner and proceeded with his consent for related work.
- After construction, Yeakel filed an equity action seeking removal of the firewall and injunctive relief, alleging the wall encroached onto her land and interfered with her use and occupancy.
- At hearing (with a judicial view of the premises), the court found an encroachment of about two inches over approximately twelve feet.
- Yeakel alleged the firewall caused basement water saturation during heavy rains and reduced security; the court found no causal connection between the firewall and these claimed harms.

## Issues

1. Whether a roughly two-inch encroachment over approximately twelve feet required equitable relief ordering removal or an injunction.
2. Whether Yeakel proved that the firewall caused compensable injury or material interference with her use and enjoyment of the property.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order dismissing the complaint in equity.
- The court agreed the encroachment was de minimis and did not warrant the drastic remedy of removal or injunctive relief.
- The court upheld the finding that Yeakel failed to prove the firewall caused her alleged water infiltration or other substantial injury.
- The court deferred to the chancellor’s supported factual findings, including those informed by the view of the premises.

## Legal Principles

- Equity does not ordinarily compel removal for a minor, technical encroachment that is de minimis, particularly where removal would impose substantial hardship relative to minimal invasion.
- In deciding whether to grant injunctive relief for an encroachment, courts may weigh the relative hardships and practical consequences of removal.
- A plaintiff seeking equitable relief must prove material harm (or a sufficient threat of harm); allegations of consequential damages require evidence of causation.
- Good-faith conduct and compliance with municipal building requirements may be considered in equitable balancing.

## Conclusion

The court held that a slight, code-related encroachment did not justify removal or injunctive relief absent proof of substantial injury, and it affirmed dismissal of the equity action because the encroachment was trivial and causation of claimed damages was not shown.


Yeakel v. Driscoll, 321 Pa. Super. 238, 467 A.2d 1342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)