Spite fence

In property law, a spite fence is an overly tall fence or a row of trees, bushes, or hedges, constructed or planted between adjacent lots by a property owner (with no legitimate purpose), who is annoyed with or wishes to annoy a neighbor, or who wishes to completely obstruct the view between lots. Several U.S. states and local governments have regulations to prohibit spite fences, or related regulations such as those establishing a maximum allowed height for fences. In the United Kingdom, the terms spite wall or blinder wall (as in, to blind the view of a neighbor) are more commonly used.

Courts have said, "[u]nder American rule... one may not erect a structure for the sole purpose of annoying his neighbor. Many courts hold that a spite fence which serves no useful purpose may give rise to an action for both injunctive relief and damages." Sundowner, Inc. v. King is a classic spite fence case. In this case from Idaho, the defendant King, bought a motel from the plaintiff (Bushnell). Bushnell then built another motel (Desert Inn) on the property right next to the motel they had sold to the Kings. In response to this, the Kings built an 18-foot fence raised 2 feet off the ground that was 2 feet from Desert Inn. The structure severely restricted air and light into Desert Inn's rooms. Bushnell sued and the court found that the fence served no useful purpose to the Kings and that it was built primarily because the Kings vehemently disliked the Bushnell's actions. The court ordered the structure's height be reduced dramatically.

If the structure is found to serve a useful purpose then it may not be considered a spite fence. In one case, a man built a 13-foot (4.0 m) fence on his property, and his neighbor sued him. The man had put up a fence that tall because his neighbor kept throwing garbage over the old (shorter) fence. Since keeping garbage out of one's yard is a legitimate reason to have a fence, it was found not to be a spite fence.^{[citation needed]}

Several states in the United States have laws that prohibit planting a row of trees parallel to a property line, which exceed six to ten feet (1.8 to 3.0 m) in height, which block a neighbor's view or sunlight. The courts have ruled that a row of trees can be considered a "fence".

Golf courses near residential communities will often have fences exceeding 20 ft (6.1 m) in height in order to prevent struck balls from flying out of the course and into the windshields of cars and windows of houses near the course. Such fences are not spite fences, and may actually be required. Outdoor arenas and amphitheatres also often use fences or other obstructions to prevent the viewing of their events by those who do not have tickets (which, although it may be unpopular with those whose free viewing is obstructed, is not necessarily spiteful).

In civil-law countries, erecting a spite wall (or a spite house) is unequivocally prohibited because of the doctrine of abuse of rights: a right ends where abuse begins. This is mostly attributable to the fact that modern building regulations often prevent any construction likely to impinge on neighbours' views or privacy.^{[citation needed]} In some countries, such as Finland, construction of any such structures is explicitly prohibited in the law (Neighbour Relations Act 13§).

Charles Crocker, a railroad investor and owner of a house on Nob Hill in San Francisco, built a high fence around his neighbor's house, Nicholas Yung, spoiling his view, after the neighbor held out for many times the market value of the property. (Crocker had wanted to buy the whole block.) The neighbor was a German undertaker called Nicolas Yung; Crocker was unsuccessful in purchasing the house until Yung had died. The height of the fence meant supporting buttresses had to be used. The work features in the April 1878 panoramic photo of San Francisco by Eadweard Muybridge.

In the California case of Wilson v. Handley, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2002), Wilson built a second story onto her log cabin. Her neighbor, Handley, did not like this addition, and retaliated by planting a row of evergreen trees, parallel to the property line, that would grow some day to purposely block Wilson's view of Mount Shasta. Wilson sued Handley for blocking her view. The California Court of Appeals ruled that trees planted parallel to a property line, to purposely block a neighbors' view, constitutes a spite fence and a private nuisance, and is illegal under California Civil Code (Section 841.4). The court further noted that bushes or hedges exceeding six feet (1.8 m) in height in California (six to ten feet (1.8 to 3.0 m) in other states) that block a neighbor's view are also a "spite fence" and a private nuisance.