Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteinjunction
statutecommon law

Related Cases

Birchler v. Castello Land Co., Inc., 133 Wash.2d 106, 942 P.2d 968
View Case »
Gilbert v. Meyer, 362 F.Supp. 168, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,044
View Case »
Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105, 62 USLW 2747
View Case »
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis.2d 212, 601 N.W.2d 627
View Case »
Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 183 F.2d 811, 23 A.L.R.2d 1366, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 57
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Peters v. O’Leary, 30 A.3d 825, 2011 ME 106

Facts

Edgar E. and Sheryl A. Peters own property in Ogunquit, Maine, which is uphill from Richard D. O'Leary's oceanfront property. After a series of disputes, O'Leary planted a row of at least seventy-four trees that obstructed the Peterses' ocean view. The Peterses filed a complaint alleging that O'Leary's actions constituted a private nuisance under Maine's spite fence statute. The court found that O'Leary's planting of the trees was motivated by malice and granted injunctive relief to the Peterses.

The Peterses filed a complaint against O'Leary in the Superior Court. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleged that O'Leary's plantings constituted a private nuisance pursuant to the spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801, and pursuant to the common law.

Issue

Did the planting of trees by O'Leary constitute a 'structure in the nature of a fence' under Maine's spite fence statute, and was there sufficient evidence to support a finding that O'Leary maintained the structure for the purpose of annoying the Peterses?

whether the court erred in determining that O'Leary had created a spite fence nuisance.

Rule

Maine's spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801, states that any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height, maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property, shall be deemed a private nuisance.

Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height, maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property, shall be deemed a private nuisance.

Analysis

The court determined that O'Leary's dense planting of trees created a 'structure in the nature of a fence' as defined by the statute. The evidence supported the conclusion that O'Leary's dominant motive for planting the trees was malicious, as he intended to obstruct the Peterses' view and punish them for their disputes. The court found that the number and size of the trees, along with O'Leary's actions and intentions, demonstrated that the planting was done with the purpose of annoyance.

The court found and concluded that O'Leary maliciously kept and maintained a 'structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height … for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that O'Leary's planting of the trees constituted a spite fence nuisance and that the court's injunction was appropriate.

The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

The Peterses prevailed in the case because the court found that O'Leary's actions constituted a private nuisance under the spite fence statute, and the court granted them injunctive relief.

The court found that O'Leary had created a nuisance pursuant to Maine's spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2010), and the common law, and granted injunctive relief to the Peterses.

You must be