Law stipulates that a property owner does not have the right to erect and maintain an otherwise useless structure for the sole purpose of injuring his neighbor.  Such an action will give rise to an action for both injunctive relief and damages.[i]

At early common law a landowner had no redress against an adjoining landowner for the erection of a fence or other structure on the division line, even though it was erected maliciously and without intent to benefit its owner.  Subsequently, courts modified this rule, and permitted an adjoining landowner to recover damages caused by a spite fence erected for the sole purpose of injuring him/her in the lawful and beneficial use of his/her property.

However, if a civil action is filed, an aggrieved party can recover only compensatory damages [ii] the injured party may suffer annoyance, or the rental or saleable value of the person’s property may be diminished, but his/her reputation is not affected as in libel, slander, or false arrest.  The adjoining landowner’s actions have no reflection on the aggrieved party’s character and hence punitive damages are not provided to the injured party.

The aggrieved party may recover for the injuries suffered, including the diminution in the value of the use of his/ her property and the annoyance caused by the erection and maintenance of the prohibited structure.[iii] The measure of damages for an alleged trespass by a spite fence would be the value of the use of the property upon which the fence stood during the time for which damages for trespass is sought, since the damage is temporary only and not permanent.[iv] However, the aggrieved landowner is not entitled to recover for embarrassment or injury to his or her feelings.[v]

Statutes which prohibit the erection of spite structures may fix the penalty and determine the amount which the person injured by such a structure shall receive.

[i] Haugen v. Kottas, 2001 MT 274, P14 (Mont. 2001)

[ii] Humphrey v. Mansbach, 265 Ky. 675, 677 (Ky. 1936).

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.