Obolensky v. Trombley
115 A.3d 1016, 198 Vt. 401, 2015 VT 34 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Vermont's spite-fence statute, 24 V.S.A. § 3817, applies the dominant-purpose test, meaning a fence is unlawful if its primary or controlling motive is to annoy an adjoining property owner by obstructing their view or depriving them of light or air, with any useful purpose being merely subordinate or incidental.
Facts:
- Michael and Jirina Obolensky own 40 acres of land in Brandon, Vermont, which they purchased in 1995 and operate as a bed-and-breakfast.
- Robert and Sandra Trombley purchased 3.7 acres of adjoining land in 2004, building their home in 2006, which enjoys a direct view of the mountains.
- In fall 2007, Mrs. Obolensky placed "no trespassing" signs in an area she believed was within her property but was also claimed and mowed by the Trombleys, initiating an acrimonious dispute.
- In fall 2009, following an incident where Mrs. Obolensky and guests walked onto the disputed mowed area, Mrs. Obolensky exposed her backside toward the Trombleys, and a man in her group urinated on the lawn.
- A few days after the parties signed a stipulated agreement on June 30, 2011, the Obolenskys began building a six-foot, one-inch tall solid wooden stockade fence along most of the eastern boundary of the Trombleys’ property, located between three inches and one foot east of the boundary line, obstructing the Trombleys’ mountain view.
- The Obolenskys also planted twenty-two evergreen trees on their property, arrayed from twenty to eighty feet from the Trombley boundary line, in front of the Trombleys’ house, further obstructing the Trombleys’ mountain view.
- Because the stockade fence was set back from the boundary line and flush with the ground, a narrow strip of the Obolenskys' property on the Trombley side of the fence became overgrown with grass, which sometimes flopped onto the Trombleys’ property.
- In the summer of 2012, Mr. Trombley cut the overgrown grass on the narrow strip between the stockade fence and the boundary line.
Procedural Posture:
- The Obolenskys filed suit against the Trombleys in the superior court to determine a boundary line and raised claims of trespass.
- On June 30, 2011, the superior court issued an order resolving the underlying case based on the parties' stipulation.
- The Trombleys filed a post-judgment motion in the superior court, seeking a declaration that the Obolenskys' stockade fence was an unlawful spite fence, an injunction ordering its removal, and damages and injunctive relief for trespass.
- The Obolenskys filed multiple motions for contempt and an amended complaint in the superior court, seeking damages for trespass related to Mr. Trombley's mowing of grass, cutting vegetation, and allegedly poisoning trees.
- The superior court conducted a site visit and a multi-day hearing on the various post-judgment motions and complaints.
- The superior court found the Obolenskys' stockade fence to be a spite fence, ordering them to reduce its height and maintain a ground clearance.
- The superior court also ordered the Obolenskys to move their barbed-wire fence and awarded the Trombleys nominal damages for two instances of trespass by the Obolenskys, as well as attorney's fees.
- The superior court further found that Mr. Trombley trespassed by cutting high grass on the Obolenskys' property, awarding the Obolenskys nominal damages and attorney's fees, but declined to hold him in contempt.
- The superior court's final judgment order on December 3, 2013, resulted in a net recovery for the Obolenskys after offsetting damages and fees.
- The Obolenskys appealed the superior court's order to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Vermont's spite-fence statute, 24 V.S.A. § 3817, require that the sole purpose of a fence be to annoy an adjoining property owner, or is it sufficient that annoyance is the dominant purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Robinson, J.
Yes, for a fence to be considered unlawful under Vermont's spite-fence statute, annoyance merely needs to be the dominant purpose. The Vermont Supreme Court formally adopted the “dominant-purpose test” for interpreting 24 V.S.A. § 3817, aligning itself with a majority of its New England sister courts. This test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the primary or controlling motive for erecting the fence was to annoy the adjoining property owner, without which the fence would not have been built or maintained, and that any alleged useful purposes (such as privacy or aesthetics) were merely subordinate or incidental. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Obolenskys’ dominant purpose in erecting the stockade fence was to annoy the Trombleys, citing substantial evidence including the history of intense animosity between the parties (e.g., Mrs. Obolensky's offensive behavior), the timing of the fence's construction, the provocative placement of signs, Mrs. Obolensky's trespassing during construction, the fence's physical characteristics (height, solid material, proximity to the Trombleys’ home, and incongruity with the rural setting), and the fact that twenty-two evergreen trees already served a privacy function. The Court rejected the Obolenskys’ arguments that the fence was permitted by a prior settlement agreement or compliance with zoning ordinances, clarifying that such compliance does not override state law prohibiting spite fences. It also upheld the trial court’s reference to 24 V.S.A. § 3801 (a statute concerning livestock fence height) as a reasonable benchmark for determining an appropriate fence height, not as a direct application of that statute. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the trial court's conclusions that the Obolenskys failed to prove the Trombleys poisoned their trees and that Mr. Trombley should not be held in contempt for mowing the grass, given the Obolenskys created the "untenable situation" with their fence placement.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the legal standard for "spite fences" in Vermont, adopting the more expansive "dominant-purpose test" over the stricter "sole-purpose test." This shift makes it easier for plaintiffs to successfully challenge structures built with malicious intent, aligning Vermont with a majority of its New England counterparts. The ruling reinforces that compliance with zoning ordinances or even specific settlement agreements does not immunize a property owner from liability under the spite-fence statute if the primary intent is malevolent. It also underscores the considerable deference given to trial court factual findings regarding intent and credibility in highly contentious neighbor disputes.
