The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld a $3.7 million jury verdict on July 29, 2026, ordering two Dartmouth homeowners to compensate their oceanfront neighbours after orchestrating an 18-year campaign of harassment, trespass, and construction sabotage.
Both defendants lost every challenge. The appellate bench affirmed the Superior Court judgment against Timothy Haydock and Susan Moss, ruling that abundant evidence proved the pair systematically intimidated Margaret Reichenbach and her husband to derail their coastal home build in Reichenbach v. Haydock. The ruling also keeps a permanent injunction intact, legally barring Haydock and Moss from ever interfering with the parcel again.
Sparse border friction mutated into obsession. The Reichenbachs bought the oceanfront parcel in 2008 and broke ground in 2009, planning a straightforward build. They secured an occupancy certificate in 2014, but relentless disruptions dragged final completion out to 2016. Haydock and Moss first flooded the town conservation commission and the Department of Environmental Protection with petitions to stall permits. When administrative avenues collapsed, the pair took matters into their own hands.
Haydock and Moss confronted workers directly. They blocked contractor trucks, deliberately hauled trash bins against the boundary wire, and trespassed on the dirt lot. Moss stationed herself along the property line roughly 300 times during the build, leveling cameras at tradesmen and the family. Haydock ran the Reichenbachs' painter off the road, shouted down the general contractor on site, and hid inside foliage to glare at the couple's son, who has a disability.
The Superior Court jury sat through 15 days of witness testimony, examined 181 exhibits, and toured the disputed Dartmouth terrain before handing down liability on three counts.
| Claim Parameter | Civil Liability Finding | Damages Assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts Civil Rights Act | Threats, intimidation, and coercion | $1,500,000 |
| Contractual Relations Interference | Forcing delays and contractor disruptions | $2,000,000 |
| Common-Law Trespass | Unlawful entry past established easements | $200,000 |
| Total Final Judgment | Affirmed on Appeal | $3,700,000 |
Haydock and Moss argued on appeal that the plaintiffs failed to establish the fear required under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, while claiming common-law trespass required proof of unpermitted physical footprints. The appellate bench dismissed both arguments outright. Writing for the court, the panel held that 300 photographed stakeouts and road confrontations would place any reasonable property owner in profound distress. Nighttime surveillance footage and guard testimony detailing Moss crossing into the lot sealed the trespass judgment.
Furthermore, the court rejected the defense assertion that contract interference requires an actual breach of terms, citing Section 766A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Causing an owner's performance to become significantly more burdensome or costly is enough under state law.
With the appellate affirmation final and post-judgment relief motions denied, the Reichenbachs retain full legal authority to execute the $3.7 million damages order against Haydock and Moss through the Superior Court.