Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ps purchased a commercially zoned lot with the intent to build a supermarket on it. They placed a sign on the lot announcing that intention. Conditions of the stock market were not favorable, and so the actual construction was postponed. The land had been owned by Trojan (D) but was sold to Ad-Mor but that grantee immediately by the next deed of record conveyed the lot to Ps. On June 1, 1957, D was building a subdivision near the lot. D asked Ad-Mor for permission to store dirt on the lot. That permission was given. The party from D asking for the consent did not know that P owned the lot. Significant amounts of dirt were put on and taken off the lot for almost 9 months. On November 26, 1957, Ps filed this action alleging that D and is subcontractor placed large amounts of dirt on their land without their permission. Ps claimed the rental value to be $750 per month. Ps asked for total damages of $10,000 for prevention of the use of their property. At trial, P testified to the rental value of $650 and two real estate brokers testified that it would be between $450-550 per month. Ps reasoned that the average value of the land was $65,000 and 1 percent per month in rent was not unreasonable. The trial court found that the value of the lot was neither greater nor less and that the average rental value was $550 per month for a total of $5,500 in fair rental use. The court also found that Ps would not have made use of the land and that they did not intend to rent it for any purpose. The court then found that the only damages were nominal damages and gave Ps $200. Ps appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co