243 Colchester Avenue, LLC v. Nina O'Connor et al.

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court denied 243 Colchester Avenue, LLC's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to remove Nina and Andrew O'Connor from disputed land and to stop their alleged continuing trespass. The court concluded that although the plaintiff established irreparable harm as a matter of law, it had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the O'Connors might establish adverse possession. The court dismissed as moot the defendants' motion for miscellaneous relief and granted their motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

Holdings

1. For purposes of the preliminary-injunction motion, a continuing trespass constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law.
2. 243 failed to establish a likelihood of success because the evidence could support the O'Connors' adverse-possession defense.
3. 243 failed to establish that the public-interest factor favored the requested injunction.
4. The motion for miscellaneous relief was dismissed as moot, and the motion for leave to file a sur-reply was granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 243 established the requirements for a preliminary injunction against the O'Connors' alleged continuing trespass.
2. Whether 243 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits in light of the O'Connors' adverse-possession defense.
3. Whether the potential harm and public-interest factors favored issuing the requested injunction.
4. Whether the O'Connors' motions for miscellaneous relief and leave to file a sur-reply should be granted or dismissed as moot.

Disposition

other