Yes. The Appeals Court upheld a jury verdict of $3.7 million and a permanent injunction against neighbors who spent years harassing a couple building a home, under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and the laws of trespass and interference with contract. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
In 2008 the plaintiffs bought oceanfront land in Dartmouth to build a house. Two neighbors, one of whom partly owned an abutting lot, tried for years to stop or slow the project. They repeatedly asked the town conservation commission and the state Department of Environmental Protection to step in. When that did not work, the jury could find, they interfered with the surveyor, harassed contractors, blocked workers’ vehicles, and trespassed on the property. One neighbor stood near the property line about three hundred times during construction, often taking photographs. The other had a heated confrontation with the general contractor on the property and forced the painter off the road. Construction that began in 2009 was not finished until 2016, and the plaintiffs sued in 2015.
What the court decided
After a fifteen-day trial, the jury awarded $1.5 million on the civil rights claim, $200,000 for trespass, and $2 million for interference with contract. The Appeals Court affirmed all of it, along with the injunction. See Reichenbach v. Haydock, No. 25-P-392 (Mass. App. Ct. July 29, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision).
Civil rights claim. The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I, lets a person sue when someone interferes, or tries to interfere, with rights secured by law through threats, intimidation, or coercion. Under Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467 (1994), intimidation means putting someone in fear to compel or deter conduct, judged by a reasonable person standard. The neighbors argued their conduct was mostly petitioning the government, and under Haufler v. Zotos, 446 Mass. 489 (2006), statements showing an intent to use lawful means, such as complaints to officials, are generally not threats under the Act. The court did not need to resolve that. There was plenty of other evidence, outside of any petitioning, that a jury could find threatening or intimidating, such as the constant watching and photographing at the property line and the confrontations with workers.
Trespass. The jury could infer that each neighbor entered the property without permission. A security guard saw one returning from the direction of the property at night, and the other confronted the contractor on the land.
Interference with contract. The Supreme Judicial Court recognized this form of the tort in Shafir v. Steele, 431 Mass. 365 (2000). It covers intentionally and improperly making it more expensive or burdensome for someone to perform their own contract. The plaintiffs did not have to prove anyone breached a contract. The jury heard evidence that the interference raised construction costs by at least $2 million, including paying a surveyor to redo work after boundary stakes were removed.
Damages and injunction. The court found the award was not excessive. Emotional distress damages are hard to measure, and a reasonable approximation of business losses is allowed when the wrongdoer’s conduct makes precise proof impossible. The injunction bars the neighbors from threatening, harassing, photographing, or surveilling the plaintiffs, their family, and people lawfully on the property. The court held it was neither vague nor overbroad. The plaintiffs may also recover appellate attorney’s fees under § 11I.
What this means for you
A neighbor has every right to raise concerns with the conservation commission, the zoning board, or other officials. That alone usually is not unlawful. But a long campaign of watching, photographing, blocking, confronting workers and entering your land is different. A jury can treat that as intimidation under the Civil Rights Act, and it can be expensive for the neighbor who does it.
Proof is what carried this case. The jury heard nineteen witnesses and saw 181 exhibits. The plaintiffs could show what happened, when, and what it cost them.
Timing matters too. The neighbors argued some of the conduct was too old to sue over. The court left it to the jury to decide when the plaintiffs knew they were being harmed, but you should not wait years to act.
What to do now
- Keep a dated log of every incident, with photos, video and the names of witnesses.
- Save invoices and estimates that show added costs caused by the interference.
- Ask contractors and workers to write down what happened to them while it is fresh.
- Keep copies of every complaint the neighbor files with town or state agencies, and how each one came out.
- Talk to a lawyer early about civil rights, trespass and injunction claims, and the deadlines that apply.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. These cases move on short deadlines.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
