Expanding Equitable Remedies in Land Encroachment Disputes: Trial Courts’ Discretion Beyond Easements

Introduction

In Alan Haag v. Wilson Properties, LLC, and John Owen Wilson (SC-2024-0405), the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a Dale County Circuit Court judgment granting an implied easement over approximately 0.68 acres of land owned by Alan Haag to his neighbor, Wilson Properties and its sole member John Owen Wilson. The dispute arose when Wilson built a three-story house and appurtenant structures based on tree‐flag markers mistaken for the true property boundary. Haag, though visiting his 850-acre tract intermittently, failed to object over several years of construction. After discovering the encroachment via a hunting app in 2022, Haag objected and both sides litigated title, encroachment, and equitable relief. The majority issued an “Affirmed, No Opinion” ruling; Justice Sellers concurred specially, agreeing in result but proposing a broader view of equitable relief in land‐encroachment cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s finding that Wilson’s improvements encroached 0.68 acres onto Haag’s land.
Because Haag had notice of the building activity and did not object, the circuit court—exercising equitable power—granted Wilson Properties an implied, constructive easement for all existing encroachments.
The majority issued no written opinion; Justice Sellers concurred specially, voicing concern that an easement may not be the most durable, just remedy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Yeager v. Lucy (998 So. 2d 460): Presumption of correctness for factual findings in non-jury bench trials.
Smith v. Muchia & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton: Reinforce appellate deference to trial‐court fact‐findings.
Tull v. United States (481 U.S. 412): Historical separation of law and equity.
Ex parte Grimmett (358 So. 3d 391): Alabama’s Unified Judicial System merges law and equity.
Rose Nulman Park Found. ex rel. Nulman v. Four Twenty Corp. (93 A.3d 25): Land disputes typically call for equitable remedies due to non-fungibility.
Hecht Co. v. Bowles (321 U.S. 321): Equity’s hallmark is flexibility over rigidity.
Hooper v. Dora Coal Min. Co. (95 Ala. 235): Grounds for injunction protecting realty when damages are inadequate.
Stringer Realty Co. v. City of Gadsden (256 Ala. 77): Test for implied easement—open, visible, continuous, reasonably necessary.
Manning v. Wingo (577 So. 2d 865): Alabama courts may deviate from common-law rigidity to balance equities—awarding value of improvements or ordering sale with offset.
Pinkston v. Hartley (511 So. 2d 168): Trial courts may craft implied easements but could choose other equitable solutions.
Central Bank of Alabama v. Ambrose (435 So. 2d 1203) & Hood v. Neil (502 So. 2d 749): Rule 54(c) and equity jurisdiction permit courts to grant remedies not specifically pleaded if justice warrants.
Alabama Power Co. v. Drummond (559 So. 2d 158): Appellate review of equitable remedies for misapplication of law or injustice.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Sellers’ concurrence underscores two foundational equity principles:

Equity’s Flexibility. Courts must “mold [their] judgment[s]” to the facts and demands of justice, selecting from a menu of remedies—injunctions, easements, partition, or sale with adjustment for improvements.
Balancing Equities in Encroachments. While an implied easement met the traditional test (open, visible, continuous, reasonably necessary), it may create permanent uncertainties—successor liability, taxation, further improvements—where a fee‐simple conveyance or equitable purchase provides a cleaner, more stable resolution.

Applying Manning v. Wingo, Sellers J. suggests that rather than stop at an easement, the circuit court could have:

Ordered Wilson Properties to purchase the 0.68-acre strip in fee simple (with Haag receiving just compensation), or
Ordered Haag to buy out the dwelling (offset by the value of improvements) and consolidate title.

Either alternative would have eliminated ambiguities about future ownership, taxation, and improvement rights—better reflecting equity’s aim to render “a just and complete remedy.”

Impact

This concurrence is likely to influence future Alabama land-dispute litigation by:

Encouraging practitioners to plead multiple equitable remedies—easement, sale, partition, purchase with offset—rather than defaulting to an implied easement.
Signaling to trial courts the legitimacy of fee-simple acquisitions or forced‐sale mechanisms when encroachments involve permanent structures.
Prompting appellate review to scrutinize whether a granted easement truly balances equities or merely perpetuates potential conflicts among successors and taxing authorities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Legal vs. Equitable Remedies: Legal remedies award money damages; equitable remedies (injunctions, easements, specific performance) require parties to act or refrain for fairness.
Implied Easement: A right to use another’s land when use is continuous, open, visible, and reasonably necessary—created by operation of equity, not express grant.
Fee-Simple Title: The most complete ownership interest in land, including rights to possess, use, dispose, and pass to heirs.
Constructive Notice: When a landowner knows of facts (e.g., visible excavation) that should alert them to investigate—failure to do so can bar later objections.
Equitable Jurisdiction: The power of courts to fashion flexible, discretionary remedies “consistent with the principles of justice” when money alone is inadequate.

Conclusion

In Haag v. Wilson Properties, the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirms that equitable remedies for land encroachments must do more than vindicate technical rights—they must deliver enduring justice. While an implied easement remains a valid tool, Justice Sellers’ concurrence pioneers an expanded view: trial courts should consider fee-simple conveyance or sale-offset remedies to resolve boundary disputes involving permanent improvements. This broader approach ensures clarity of title, equitable compensation, and stable land use for present and future owners. Going forward, both litigants and courts in Alabama will look beyond traditional easements to secure remedies that are truly “consistent with the principles of justice.”