Opinion ID: 2798597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spite Fence Statute

Text: [¶13] The Rices next argue that the court erred in its factual findings that the Rices’ fences were “unnecessarily high” as that term is used in 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2014) and “unreasonably interfered” with the Cooks’ use and enjoyment of their property pursuant to a common law theory of nuisance. “We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo.” Peters v. O’Leary, 2011 ME 106, ¶ 15, 30 A.3d 825. [¶14] Spite fence jurisprudence is sparse but long-standing. “[I]t is plain that the right to use one’s property for the sole purpose of injuring others is not one of the immediate rights of ownership.” Rideout v. Knox, 19 N.E. 390, 391 (Mass. 1889) (Holmes, J.) (discussing Massachusetts’s spite fence statute). Title 17 M.R.S. § 2801, the spite fence statute, deems “[a]ny 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” a nuisance. By its plain meaning, “unnecessarily” means “not by necessity” or “to an unnecessary degree.” Webster’s New International Dictionary (3rd ed. Merriam Webster 2002). 2014 ME 37, ¶ 16, 87 A.3d 741 (holding that an issue brought up for the first time on appeal was not properly preserved); see also Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24, ¶ 30, 16 A.3d 137. 9 [¶15] Recently, in Peters v. O’Leary, we evaluated whether a boundary made of many large trees created a nuisance pursuant to section 2801. 2011 ME 106, ¶¶ 17-18, 30 A.3d 825. Although our focus in Peters was whether trees could be used to create a spite fence, Peters does provide insight into the word “unnecessarily.” Id. In Peters, formerly cordial neighbors developed a contentious relationship after one family built a new home. Id. ¶ 3. In the midst of their disagreements, the other neighbor learned that, once vegetation was planted on his property, a town ordinance would preclude its removal. Id. Armed with this information, and without notifying his neighbors, he planted sixty-one arborvitae and thirteen pear trees on his property in a manner that was “designed to provide a continuous barrier between the properties.” Id. ¶ 4. The trial court found that the dominant reason for this massive planting “was to punish the [Peterses] by significantly reducing their prized view of the Atlantic.” Id. ¶ 7 (quotation marks omitted). We affirmed this finding and the court’s determination that, without that malicious motive, the neighbor would not have created the fence. Id. ¶¶ 15-18. We explicitly determined both that the number and size of plantings supported the court’s finding of a dominantly malicious motive, and those same facts, coupled with the dominantly malicious motive, provided the basis for the court’s “unnecessarily” finding. Id. ¶¶ 13-18; see also Healey v. Spaulding, 104 Me. 122, 10 124-25, 71 A. 472 (1908) (categorizing a fence as “extraordinary and unnecessary” based on its twelve-foot height). [¶16] Here, the Rices argue that the height and nature of their fences were necessary due to the “sloped and rocky” nature of the land, and that the court heard “uncontroverted evidence that the height and structure of the fences were necessary.” Although the court did hear testimony from Robert Rice explaining where, when, and how he built the fences, the court also had numerous photographs depicting the fences and was in the best position to determine whether Robert Rice’s explanations were credible. See Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 14, 12 A.3d 79 (“A court is not required to believe the testimony of any particular witness, expert or otherwise, even when the witness’s testimony is uncontradicted.”) (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted). Despite the Rices’ assertions, the court found that, in building the fences, the Rices intended to annoy the Cooks and interfere with their use of their property. This supports the court’s finding that the fences “unnecessarily” exceeded six feet in height.2