Spite fence

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 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. Several states in the United States have laws that prohibit planting a row of trees parallel to a property line, which exceed 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 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. In some countries, such as Finland, construction of any such structures is explicitly prohibited in the law (Neighbour Relations Act 13§). == Examples ==