Richard Tranfield v. Patricia Arcuni-English
2019 ME 135 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A structure, such as a row of trees, constitutes a private nuisance under Maine's spite fence statute if the plaintiff proves that the dominant motive for its erection was malice, meaning the purpose to annoy a neighbor. A co-existing, legitimate motive like a desire for privacy does not defeat a spite fence claim if the malicious motive was the predominant one.
Facts:
- In January 2016, Richard Tranfield and Karla Doremus-Tranfield purchased property uphill from Patricia Arcuni-English's property, which had a partial ocean view across her land.
- On the day they moved in, Mr. Tranfield took firewood from Arcuni-English's property, leading her to believe he was stealing it.
- Shortly thereafter, Arcuni-English angrily confronted Mr. Tranfield about him cutting branches on his property and expressed displeasure about their dogs, threatening to erect a ten-foot fence to block their view.
- While Arcuni-English was away, the Tranfields cleared deadwood and debris on their property, which reduced the natural privacy screen between the two homes.
- Upon learning her privacy was diminished, Arcuni-English stated she was 'devastated' and called a landscaper, telling him she needed 'trees and privacy.'
- In April 2016, the landscaper planted approximately 24 arborvitaes (10-12 feet high) and 7 pine trees along the boundary line, creating a dense, continuous wall that blocked the Tranfields' view.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard and Karla Doremus-Tranfield filed a complaint against Patricia Arcuni-English in the Maine Superior Court (Knox County).
- The complaint alleged nuisance under Maine's spite fence statute and common law, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- A bench trial was held, which began with the judge taking a 'view' of the property.
- The Superior Court entered a judgment in favor of the Tranfields, finding that the trees constituted a spite fence.
- The trial court ordered Arcuni-English to remove some trees, trim others to a height of ten feet, and refrain from replacing any that die off.
- Arcuni-English, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal of the Superior Court's judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial 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 a row of trees installed along a property line constitute a 'spite fence' under 17 M.R.S. § 2801 when the installer's dominant motive is malicious, even if a desire for privacy is also a contributing motive?
Opinions:
Majority - Mead, J.
Yes, a row of trees constitutes a 'spite fence' when the installer's dominant motive is malicious, even with a co-existing privacy concern. The trial court's finding of a dominantly malicious motive was not clear error and was supported by competent evidence. This evidence included the history of animosity between the parties, Arcuni-English’s prior threat to block the Tranfields' view, the installation of the trees without notice, and the excessive size and density of the plantings, which formed a 'continuous green wall.' The court found that while privacy was a concern for Arcuni-English, her malicious motive was dominant, meaning 'without that motive, she would not have installed the trees as she did.' Therefore, the trees met the statutory definition of a private nuisance.
Dissenting - Alexander, J.
No, the trees should not be considered a 'spite fence' because the trial court's findings were inconsistent and it failed to properly consider the plaintiffs' provocative actions. The trial court found both that Arcuni-English's dominant motive was malice and that she 'never told [the landscaper] to block their view,' but rather instructed him to restore her privacy. These findings are contradictory. The court also failed to adequately weigh the Tranfields' own actions—taking firewood, their dogs being a nuisance, and their removal of the pre-existing privacy screen—which provoked Arcuni-English’s response. The primary motive was the restoration of privacy that the Tranfields themselves had eliminated, not malice.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the 'dominant motive' test for spite fence claims, clarifying that a defendant's assertion of a legitimate purpose, such as privacy, will not prevail if evidence shows malice was the primary driver. The decision underscores the fact-intensive nature of these disputes and the high degree of deference appellate courts give to trial court findings on motive and credibility. It also solidifies that a dense row of trees can be considered a 'structure in the nature of a fence' under the statute, influencing how future boundary disputes involving landscaping are litigated.
