Whitlock v. Hilander Foods, Inc.

Hilander (defendant), building a store addition with Whitlock's (plaintiff) permission to use his land during construction, built a retaining wall whose underground footings extended 18 inches onto Whitlock's property; Whitlock noticed the encroachment early, sought a lease arrangement Hilander never finalized, and eventually revoked construction access and sued for removal after a survey confirmed the extent of the encroachment. Hilander claimed the footings simply matched a pre-existing encroachment, and the trial court granted Hilander summary judgment, denying the injunction; Whitlock appealed.

Whether an injunction ordering removal of an encroaching structure may be issued without weighing the relative hardships of the parties when the encroachment was deliberate.