A landowner may bring an injunctive relief against the adjoining owner if the adjoining owner erected a spite fence.  A spite fence is defined as one which is of no beneficial use or pleasure to the owner but is erected and maintained for the purpose of annoying a neighbor.[i] Generally, the erection and maintenance of spite fences or structures by landowner and adjoining owners will be enjoined and hence a nuisance claim may not be filed, rather an injunction claim can be filed.

In, Hornsby v. Smith,[ii] Plaintiff landowner filed an action against defendant neighbor to remove a fence erected by the neighbor along the boundary of their adjoining pieces of property.  The court found that, the construction of the fence is for the sole purpose of injuring the landowner and is not a lawful use of neighbor’s property.  Further, the right of the landowner to the free passage of light and air is subject only to a superior right of the neighbor to make use of her property in good faith for the purpose of increasing her joy of ownership.  If the adjoining owner does not make such lawful use the plaintiff is entitled to prevent by legal process an interference with right to light and air done solely for the purpose of injuring.

In, Bush v. Mockett,[iii] the property owner brought an action to enjoin the neighbors for interfering with a fence that she had erected between their properties.  The neighbors filed a cross-petition to enjoin the property owner from maintaining the fence, alleging that it shut out the air, light, and view from their windows, and that it was erected solely to annoy them.  The court held that the fence is built solely for the purpose of disturbing the neighbors.  And a landowner is enjoined from erecting a fence on own land for the sole purpose of annoying the neighbor without any useful purpose.

In, Haugen v. Kottas [iv] the court held that, a landowner has no 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.  The curt further held that, one may not erect a structure for the sole purpose of annoying the neighbor. No man has a legal right to make a malicious use of his/her property, not for any benefit or advantage to himself, but for the avowed purpose of damaging neighbor.  A spite fence action and nuisance action give rise to injunctive relief and damages.[v] In, Dowdell v. Bloomquist[vi] court held that, injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy in a nuisance action under a spite fence statute, even though the statute specifically allows damages

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

[ii] 191 Ga. 491 (Ga. 1941)

[iii] 95 Neb. 552 (Neb. 1914)

[iv] 2001 MT 274 (Mont. 2001)

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

[vi] 847 A.2d 827 (R.I. 2004)