In 2008, Margaret Reichenbach and her husband bought oceanfront land in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, with plans to build a new home. But what should have been a straightforward construction project turned into an 18-year legal saga after neighbours repeatedly tried to stop or delay the work, interfered with contractors and allegedly trespassed on the property. On July 29, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld a jury verdict awarding the couple $3.7 million in damages and affirmed a permanent injunction against further interference, as per records on Findlaw.com. The case, Reichenbach v. Haydock, is a striking example of how far a property dispute can go when neighbours turn a boundary disagreement into a prolonged campaign of obstruction. The jury found that Timothy Haydock and Susan Moss violated the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, committed trespass and intentionally interfered with the couple's construction contract, conduct the appellate court said was supported by ample evidence.
How the dispute began
The Reichenbachs bought the oceanfront property in 2008 and began construction in 2009. They received a certificate of occupancy in 2014, but the home was not fully finished until 2016, years later than expected. The delay was not caused by weather, financing or ordinary construction problems. According to the court's summary, the defendants engaged in a range of actions aimed at stymieing the project, including repeated petitions to the town's conservation commission and the Department of Environmental Protection to stop or delay construction. When those efforts failed, the conduct escalated. The defendants interfered with the work of the couple's surveyor, repeatedly harassed contractors, blocked workers' vehicles, moved garbage cans close to the property line and trespassed on the land.
What the jury heard
The case went to trial in Superior Court, where the jury spent 15 days hearing evidence. They took a view of the property and surrounding neighborhood, heard from 19 witnesses and reviewed 181 exhibits. The jury found the defendants liable on three counts: violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, trespass and intentional interference with contractual relations. The total damages award came to $3.7 million, with $1.5 million allocated to the civil rights claim, $200,000 to trespass and $2 million to interference with contract. After the verdict, the trial judge granted the Reichenbachs a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from interfering with their use and enjoyment of the property. The judge also denied the defendants' requests for a stay of the injunction, a new trial and other post-judgment relief.
Why the civil rights claim held up
The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act requires a plaintiff to show that someone interfered with their exercise or enjoyment of a constitutional or statutory right through threats, intimidation or coercion. The appellate court said the evidence easily met that standard. The court noted that Moss stood near the property boundary approximately 300 times during construction, often taking photographs of the activity. That behavior, combined with other actions aimed at interfering with the build, supported the inference that a reasonable person in the Reichenbachs' position would have felt intimidated or put in fear. Haydock's conduct was also found sufficient. The court cited a heated altercation with the couple's general contractor on the property, forcing their painter off the road and yelling at him, and hiding in bushes near the property while staring at the Reichenbachs' son, who has a disability.
Why the trespass claim held up
On the trespass claim, the defendants argued there was no evidence they had entered the property without permission. The appellate court disagreed. A security guard testified to seeing Moss returning to her car from the direction of the property at night, which the court said allowed the jury to infer she had entered without permission. Haydock's altercation with the general contractor on the property also supported the inference that he lacked permission, particularly since the defendants offered no affirmative evidence that the Reichenbachs had ever granted them access beyond easements. The court applied the standard legal definition of trespass, which requires entering or remaining on land in another's possession without privilege. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was enough for the jury to find that standard met.
Why the contract interference claim held up
The defendants also argued that the Reichenbachs failed to prove a breach of contract, which they said was necessary for the interference claim. The appellate court rejected that argument, explaining that Massachusetts recognizes a form of interference with contract under Section 766A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that does not require an actual breach. Instead, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with performance of the contract, making it more expensive or burdensome. The court found that the defendants' conduct did exactly that, increasing the cost of the construction project by at least $2 million. The jury heard evidence that the project's cost ballooned from an initial estimate of roughly $4.2 million on the low end to a final cost of $10 million. The court said that evidence, along with testimony about the personal time and effort the Reichenbachs spent on meetings, appeals, counsel and consultants, was enough to support the $2 million award.
Why the damages award survived
The defendants argued that the damages were excessive and speculative. The appellate court disagreed, noting that $700,000 of the total was for emotional damages, which the court said are inherently difficult to prove with certainty but still compensable. The court also rejected the argument that the civil rights award duplicated the contract interference award. The jury was instructed not to duplicate damages, and the court presumed it followed that instruction. The $1 million in non-emotional distress damages under the civil rights claim was tied to the loss of use and enjoyment of the property, which the court said was fully accounted for by the evidence. On the contract interference award, the court said a reasonable approximation of compensatory damages is permissible in business tort cases where close measurement is impossible. The $2 million award was not markedly against the weight of the evidence, given the scale of the cost overruns and the burden the defendants' conduct imposed.
Why the injunction survived
The defendants argued that the permanent injunction was unsupported by evidence and unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court rejected both arguments. The injunction prohibits the defendants from threatening, harassing, intimidating, photographing, coercing or surveilling the plaintiffs, their family members, employees, tenants, contractors, vendors and others lawfully on the property. It also bars conduct that an objectively reasonable person would conclude interferes with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the property. The court said the language was not vague because it used objective standards rather than subjective ones. It also said the injunction was not overbroad, since it was narrowly tailored to prevent the specific harms the jury found, including harassment of the Reichenbachs' child and contractors.
What the ruling means
The appellate court affirmed the judgments in favor of the Reichenbachs on all three claims and upheld the permanent injunction. It also affirmed the denial of the defendants' post-judgment motions. The plaintiffs are entitled to appellate attorney's fees and costs under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. They have 14 days to submit a detailed request, and the defendants have 14 days after that to respond. The case shows how a neighbour dispute can escalate into a multi-million-dollar legal battle when conduct crosses the line from petitioning to harassment. For the Reichenbachs, the verdict and injunction represent a long-awaited end to a conflict that began with a piece of oceanfront land and a dream home.
