Sundowner, Inc. v. King

Idaho Supreme Court
509 P.2d 785, 95 Idaho 367 (1973)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A property owner does not have the right to erect and maintain an otherwise useless structure for the sole purpose of injuring an adjoining landowner.

Facts:

In 1966, Robert Bushnell sold a motel property to the Kings.
Bushnell then built a new motel, the Desert Inn, on an adjacent property.
After a separate legal dispute arose between the parties concerning the original sale, the Kings built a large structure on their property in 1968.
The structure stood 18 feet high and 85 feet long, running parallel to Bushnell's Desert Inn.
It was built only 16 inches from the property line and two feet from the Desert Inn building.
The structure obscured approximately 80% of the Desert Inn building, restricting light and air to its rooms.
Testimony from an advertising expert indicated the structure, which the Kings called a 'sign', had no actual advertising value and its cost was not justified for that purpose.

Procedural Posture:

Robert Bushnell (doing business as H. J. McNeel, Inc.) sued the Kings in the district court, which is the trial court in Idaho.
Bushnell sought money damages and an injunction ordering the removal of the structure.
Following a trial, the district court found that the structure was a spite fence.
The trial court ordered the Kings to reduce the structure's height to a maximum of six feet.
The Kings, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.

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 the erection of a structure on one's own property, which serves no useful purpose and is motivated solely by malice toward an adjoining landowner, constitute an actionable wrong that a court can order to be removed or altered?

Opinions:

Majority - Shepard, Justice

Yes. A property owner does not have the right to erect and maintain an otherwise useless structure for the sole purpose of injuring a neighbor. The court explicitly adopts the 'modern American rule,' which holds that while a property owner has rights to use their land, they cannot do so for a purely malicious purpose that provides no benefit to themselves. This approach rejects the older English rule that a landowner's motive was irrelevant. The court found substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the structure served no useful purpose and was erected out of ill-will and spite toward Bushnell. The court classifies such a structure as a nuisance and affirms that courts have the power to grant injunctive relief, such as ordering its partial removal (abatement).

Analysis:

This decision formally establishes the 'spite fence' doctrine in Idaho, aligning the state with the modern American majority rule on the issue. By doing so, the court moves away from the traditional, absolute concept of property rights, where a landowner's motive was legally irrelevant. The ruling establishes that a property owner's intent can be a determining factor in whether an otherwise lawful use of their land constitutes an actionable nuisance. This precedent empowers courts to look beyond the physical structure and examine the owner's purpose, providing a remedy for landowners harmed by neighbors acting out of pure malice rather than for any legitimate use.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sundowner, Inc. v. King (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"