A mandatory injunction will ordinarily be granted to compel removal, without regard for the relative conveniences or hardships which may result, where an encroachment by an adjoining landowner is intentional or willful.[i]  Where property owners who repaved a driveway and constructed an adjacent fence along a boundary during the pendency of a boundary dispute did not act in good faith, it was properly ordered to remove the fence and the portion of the driveway that encroached upon the neighbors’ property.[ii]  Moreover, the balance of injury test is inappropriate where defendants had full knowledge of easement and took calculated risk that plaintiffs would not assert their rights.[iii]

[i] Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal. App. 2d 154, 14 Cal. Rptr. 174 (1st Dist. 1961)

[ii] Ensenat v. Edgecombe, 677 So. 2d 138 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996).

[iii] Papanikolas Bros. Enterprises v. Sugarhouse Shopping Center Associates, 535 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1975).