Connecticut § 52-480 - Injunction against malicious erection of structure.

§ 52-480. Injunction against malicious erection of structure.

Sec. 52-480. Injunction against malicious erection of structure. An injunction may be granted against the malicious erection, by or with the consent of an owner, lessee or person entitled to the possession of land, of any structure upon it, intended to annoy and injure any owner or lessee of adjacent land in respect to his use or disposition of the same.

(1949 Rev., S. 8216.)

See Sec. 52-570 re action for malicious erection of structure.

When no defense that structure screens respondents' premises. 46 C. 109. Injunction may be granted against the continuance of structure erected in violation of statute. Id., 108. The malicious purpose must be the predominant one and give character to the act. 48 C. 395. The malicious acts intended by statute must, as a rule, go beyond the petty hostilities of business competition. Id., 395. History, purpose and scope of remedy. 75 C. 425; 102 C. 357. Finding that erection malicious not ordinarily reviewable. 82 C. 290. That fence is being constructed by independent contractor is no defense to proceedings for contempt for violation of temporary injunction by continuing erection. 102 C. 358. On finding, plaintiff held not entitled to relief under section for building of wall and change of grade. 132 C. 319. Equitable defense of “clean hands” available but not applicable to facts; it was abuse of trial courts' discretion to enjoin building of any other structures on that portion of land from which court ordered removal of fence. 174 C. 29.

Cited. 46 CA 164. Uselessness prong of six-factor test in Whitlock v. Uhle, 75 C. 423, focuses on whether structure serves an actual use, not whether defendants can merely assert a purpose for erecting the structure. 185 CA 119.

Cited. 13 CS 25. Injunctive relief presupposes an emergency. 15 CS 455. Elements necessary to state a cause of action under section enumerated. 21 CS 110. A hedge is not a “structure” within the meaning of malicious structure statutes. 47 CS 645. Testimony credible that fence was erected, in part, for legitimate purpose of safeguarding children and dogs; essential elements of cause of action under section are (1) structure erected on defendant's land, (2) malicious erection of structure, (3) intent to injure enjoyment of adjacent landowner's land by erection of structure, (4) impairment of value of adjacent land because of structure, (5) structure is useless to defendant, and (6) enjoyment of adjacent landowner's land is in fact impaired. 51 CS 399.

Provides for injunctive relief for structures constructed with intention to annoy and injure plaintiff's use of premises. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 427, 428.