Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2018

Home

June 15, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin way at the time, it did not suffer any harm from the encroachment of his property upon it, while he would suffer great harm (in cost) if forced to tear it down. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, upheld the perma- nent injunction issued against Reynolds. In so holding, the court rejected all of Reynolds' arguments. With regard to Reynolds' argument that the County failed to show the elements necessary for a peiivanent injunction, the court explained that "[w]hile the threat of irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law must usually be specifically shown for injunctive relief to be granted, [w]here a trespass is recurring and would involve a mul- tiplicity of suits an injunction will lie to restrain it.' " In other words, under Missouri law, "irreparable harm need not be shown in the case of a repeated or continuing trespass." Here, the court found that "Rey- nolds's garage, satellite dish, and privacy fence plainly interfered with County's property interest in the right-of-way surrounding [the road,] and that interference was of a permanent and continuous nature." Thus, the court concluded that the County was not required to show any fur- ther harm, and rejected Reynolds' claim to the contrary. The court similarly rejected Reynolds' claim that the existence of potential criminal penalties constituted an adequate remedy at law. The court said that under Missouri law, the right to an injunction to "prevent irreparable injury to property is not divested by the fact that the act to be enjoined may also be a violation of the criminal law...." Rejecting Reynolds' additional argument that the balancing of equi- ties did not favor an injunction against him, the court noted that Reynolds' expenditure of money in construction of the garage was done with knowledge of his zoning violations. The court also explained that accepting Reynolds' position —that an injunction requiring re- moval of his garage was unwarranted because harm to him in removing the garage outweighed harm to the County that was not using the right- of-way on which his garage encroached —would result in a "patently unlawful appropriation of public land by private individuals." See also: Kugler v. Ryan, 682 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1984). See also: Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City, 240 Mo. 659, 144 S.W. 1099 (1912). 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters