Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2004

Home

Page 2 -- Apri/25, 2004 Z.B. Nuisance- Neighbor plants "spite fence" of 45-foot trees Blocks view of feuding neighbor Citation: Dowdetl v. Btoomquisr, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, No. 2002-630-Appeal (2004) RHODE ISLAtND (03/15/04) -- Do.wdell owned property next to Bloomquist. Bloomquist petitioned for a vahance to build a second story on his home. Dowdeil opposed the variance, concerned a second story would bIock the dis- rant view of the Atlantic Ocean. For six months, the neighbors argued before the Charlestown Zoning Board of Review as to the merits of the addition. The variance was ultimately denied. Bloomquist then planted four 45-foot trees in a row bordering the property line, and Bloomquist's attorney sent a letter to Dowdetl warning against tres- pass onto the Bloomquist property. The trees enabled little light to pass into Dowdell's second- and third-story windows. The neighbors continued to feud. Dowdell sued, claiming the trees violated the state's "spite fence" statute. Under that stat-ute, a fence or structure unnecessarily exceeding six feet in hei~=ht and maliciously ma/ntained or erected for the purpose of annoying neigh- boring property owners was an illegal nuisance. The court ruled in Dowdell's favor. Bloomquist appealed, arguing the trees were planted for his privacy. DECISION: Affirmed. There was no apparent justification for the size and placement of the trees. Thus, the trees created'an illegal spite fence. What made a spite fence a nuisance was not merely that it blocked hght and view, but that it did so unnecessar/_Iy and for the malicious purpose of annoyance. Consequently, it did not need to do more than interfere with light and air. Based on the turbulent history between the parties, BIoomquist's provoca- tive statements, the notice of trespass letter sent to Dowdell, and the size, timing, and placement of the trees, it was clear B!oomquist's claim the fence was installed to enhance privacy lacked credibility. The very nature of a fence was such that privacy could always be given as the reason for erecting it. In egregious cases such as this, where evidence of malicious intent clearly outweighed the discounted, benefit claimed by Bloomquist, the lower court correctly found Bloomquist's actions violated the law. see also: Wilso~2 v. Ifandley, 97 Cal. Algp. 4rh ]30! (2002). see also: Harris v. Town of Li~2coh2, 668 A.2d 32] (1995). see also: Musumeci v. Lemmrdo, 75 A.2d ]75 (J950). © 2004 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more iniormation please ,:all (617) 542-0048. 108