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

contractstatutetestimony
contracttestimonycommon law

Related Cases

Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 227 A.3d 1209
View Case »
Hastings v. State, 386 So.3d 955, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1128
View Case »
Great Western Sugar Co. v. Mrs. Allison’s Cookie Co., 563 F.Supp. 430, 36 UCC Rep.Serv. 164
View Case »
Poltorak v. Jackson Chevrolet Co., 322 Mass. 699, 79 N.E.2d 285
View Case »
Almetals, Inc. v. Wickeder Westfalenstah L, GmbH, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4791377, 67 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 562
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rice v. Cook, 115 A.3d 86, 2015 ME 49

Facts

The Rices and Cooks are neighbors on Green Lake in Dedham. In 2001, the Rices built a garage, and the Cooks constructed a house on their property. Both parties claimed their structures met the ten-foot setback requirement, but neither knew the exact boundary location until a survey was commissioned in 2008. The Rices claimed an agreement existed regarding the boundary, which the Cooks denied, and the Rices built fences that obstructed the Cooks' view and created a nuisance.

The Rices and Cooks are neighbors on Green Lake in Dedham. In 2001, the Rices built a garage on their property, and the Cooks tore down an old camp and built a house where the camp previously stood. Both parties indicated on their respective building permit applications that their proposed structures met the ten-foot setback requirement. Nevertheless, neither party knew the location of the boundary nor commissioned a survey until 2008.

Issue

Did the court err in finding that the parties did not reach an agreement regarding their common boundary line, and were the Rices' fences unnecessarily high and a nuisance?

The Rices contend that (1) the court erred in finding that the parties did not reach an agreement regarding their common boundary line, (2) the court erred in finding that the Rices' fences were “unnecessarily high” pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2014) or “unreasonably interfered” with the Cooks' use and enjoyment of their property pursuant to a common law theory of nuisance, and (3) the court abused its discretion in enjoining the Rices from building a fence of any height along a portion of their boundary with the Cooks.

Rule

A contract exists when the parties mutually assent to be bound by all its material terms, and a fence exceeding six feet in height may be deemed a nuisance if maintained with the intent to annoy adjoining property owners.

A contract exists when the parties mutually assent to be bound by all its material terms, the assent is either expressly or impliedly manifested in the contract, and the contract is sufficiently definite.

Analysis

The court found that the Rices and Cooks never reached an agreement on the boundary line, supported by testimony indicating no specific discussions occurred. The court also determined that the Rices' fences exceeded six feet in height and were built with the intent to annoy the Cooks, thus constituting a nuisance under the spite fence statute.

The court found that the parties did not agree to a common boundary line, or memorialize any sort of metes and bounds description or any other writing of their agreement. This finding is supported by the testimony of James Cook, who stated that he and Robert Rice never had any specific conversations about the boundary line, and that he did not know where the boundary line was until he had a survey completed in 2008.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the evidence supported the findings regarding the boundary agreement and the nature of the Rices' fences.

The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

James C. Cook and Carol Greenleaf–Cook prevailed because the court found that the Rices did not have a valid agreement regarding the boundary and that their fences constituted a nuisance.

The court concluded, inter alia, that the Cooks and Rices never “actually reached an agreement” regarding the location of the common boundary and, therefore, the Cooks did not breach a contract concerning the location of the boundary.

You must be