Appellant challenged the damages award in favor of respondent in this real estate encroachment action, arguing that the District Court erred in (1) calculating diminution-in-value damages; (2) awarding ancillary damages for mortgage interest, property taxes, and maintenance expenses; and (3) determining the accrual date for prejudgment interest. Appellant sought reversal of the damages award and remand on the issue of prejudgment interest. By notice of related appeal, respondent sought reversal of the District Court’s denial of injunctive relief or, in the alternative, an award of additional damages for the ordered conveyance of the encroached-upon strip of land. The Court of Appeals held that (1) a landowner awarded damages for an encroachment on real property is entitled to both diminution-in-value damages reflecting the value of the land pre- and post-encroachment and conveyance damages if the landowner is ordered to convey fee title to the encroached-upon property; (2) a District Court should consider the size of the encroachment when balancing the equities and hardships to determine whether injunctive relief is warranted; and (3) a landowner is not entitled to both diminution-in-value damages and the lost rental value of the encroached-upon land for the period of encroachment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.