Glavin v. Eckman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Glavin v. Eckman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Glavin v. Eckman | 881 N.E.2d 820 (2008) Generally, in trespass cases, the appropriate measure of damages is the sum that will compensate the plaintiff for the losses sustained as a result of the trespass. Consequently, damages are usually the difference in the fair market value of the property before and after the injury caused by the trespass, or for the cost of restoration, whichever is less. In the 2008 case Glavin versus Eckman, the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered whether defendants in a trespass case could be required to pay for reasonable restoration damages for cutting down a neighbor’s trees. James Glavin, husband and wife Bruce and Shelly Eckman, and Bea Gentry owned four rectangular lots of land in Martha’s Vineyard that were roughly parallel. Glavin owned the two westernmost lots, the Eckmans owned the easternmost lot, and Gentry owned a lot in between. While the Eckmans were building their vacation home on their lot in 1996, they asked Glavin for permission to cut down some of the trees on his lots to enhance their view of the ocean. In response, Glavin refused, stating that he had personal reasons for not cutting down the trees. A few years later, the Eckmans hired Jon Fragosa and his landscaping company, Three Trees, Limited, to top and remove trees blocking their view. The Eckmans told Fragosa to clear as many trees as possible. However, it was apparent that most of the trees weren’t on their property. In setting up for the job, Fragosa obtained permission from Gentry to cut and trim trees on her lot. But Fragosa didn’t ascertain the boundaries of Gentry’s lot relative to Glavin’s lots or the Eckmans’ lot and didn’t seek permission from Glavin. Fragosa then began trimming and cutting down trees. While doing so, Fragosa went fifty to one hundred feet across the unmarked boundary between the Gentry and Glavin lots and cut down some of Glavin’s mature oak trees. At the time, a Massachusetts statute made it illegal to willfully cut down trees on a neighbor’s property without permission. But the statute didn’t state how damages should be measured. Subsequently, Glavin sued the Eckmans, Fragosa, and Three Trees in state superior court for the wrongful cutting of his trees. Following trial, a jury found in favor of Glavin, awarding him thirty thousand dollars in restoration damages. Eckman appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, arguing that the court erred in permitting restoration damages rather than damages measured by the value of the trees cut or the diminution in the market value of Glavin’s property. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/glavin-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/glavin-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries