Tranfield v. Arcuni-English

215 A.3d 222 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In January 2016, Ps purchased a parcel of land that abuts and is uphill from D's property. At that time, P's property had a slot view of the ocean out across D's property, but D was still afforded privacy by trees and overgrown shrubbery at lower levels on the parties' boundary line. When Ps moved in, P went onto D's property to ask if he could use some of her firewood. She was not home, and he took some wood. D saw him in her driveway, did not recognize him, and thought that he was stealing her firewood. Later, P was removing a tree near a shed on his property and limbing dead branches on his property along the parties' boundary line. D approached him, expressing anger that he was cutting trees without discussing it with his neighbors beforehand. D then told P that she would put up a ten-foot fence to block the Ps' view. D expressed displeasure with Ps removing a koi pond on their property and with the fact that their dogs had urinated and defecated on her property. D was traveling when she got a picture from a local landscaper who works for both parties of a photograph of the parties' boundary line. Ps had cleared much of the deadwood and debris on their property, thereby opening up a view of their house to D's property. D was devastated by this action on their property. She called the landscaper and told him that she needed trees and privacy, and they discussed how to do it. In April 2016, the landscaper planted approximately twenty-four arborvitaes along the boundary line. These trees were ten to twelve feet in height; some shorter trees were also installed to create an additional row to fill in any gaps. The landscaper installed seven four-to-six-foot pine trees near a structure on D's property. Ps sued D alleging that the plantings constituted a nuisance and seeking damages and injunctive relief. After a bench trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of Ps. The court held that D had installed a spite fence. It held that D's dominant motive was to install a continuous green barrier between the two properties along the boundary line. The trees were installed without any advance notice and would block Ps' view without considering other types of vegetation that could provide her privacy without blocking entirely the slot view that Ps had or without totally closing in their back yard. It held that D's motive was malicious and without that motive, she would not have installed the trees as she did, even to vindicate her privacy interest, which could have been satisfied with the use of fewer and more contained trees and bushes. The court ordered P to remove every other pine tree along the boundary line, remove the trees that were planted as an additional row to fill in gaps and trim all of the arborvitae to a height no greater than ten feet. The court prohibited D from replacing any arborvitae that died off. D appealed.