Peters v. O'LEARY
2011 ME 106
| Me. | 2011Background
- Peterses own property in Ogunquit; their land sits uphill from O'Leary's property, which has an easement and a deed restriction limiting structures within 10 feet of the 125-foot boundary.
- O'Leary planted a long row of trees (61 arborvitae and 13 pear trees) near the boundary to create a continuous barrier and block Peterses' ocean view.
- O'Leary did not provide advance notice of the extensive plantings and planned growth; Peterses and O'Leary had escalating disputes over vegetation and the boundary.
- The Peterses sued, alleging nuisance under Maine's spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801, and common law; O'Leary counterclaimed for trespass and enforcement of the deed restriction.
- The Superior Court found a spite fence nuisance, ordered partial removal of pear trees, set height limits for arborvitae, and declined to award damages or costs to either party.
- On appeal, the court upheld the nuisance ruling, emphasizing malice as the dominant motive and limiting the remedy to a carefully tailored injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plantings constitute a structure in the nature of a fence | Peterses contend plantings form a fence-like structure. | O'Leary argues plantings do not constitute a structure in the nature of a fence. | Yes; plantings created a structure in the nature of a fence. |
| Whether the evidence supports a finding of malicious purpose for annoying Peterses | Peterses claim malice was the dominant motive for the plantings. | O'Leary disputes that malice was the dominant motive. | Yes; evidence shows dominant malice behind the plantings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Healey v. Spaulding, 104 Me. 122 (Me. 1908) (dominant-motive standard for nuisance fences)
- Lord v. Langdon, 91 Me. 221 (Me. 1898) (dominant motive required for malicious fence)
- Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 368 (Mass. 1889) (suggests dominant-motive requirement for malicious fences)
- Degenhardt v. Ewe Ltd. P'ship, 2011 ME 23 (Me. 2011) (standard for reviewing findings; de novo mixed with clear-error)
- Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15 (Me. 2011) (evidence-upheld standard; supportive findings)
- Jusseaume v. Ducatt, 2011 ME 43 (Me. 2011) (statutory interpretation and plain-language approach)
- HL 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011) (interpretive framework for statutory meaning and legislative intent)
- Gaeth v. Deacon, 2011 ME 9 (Me. 2011) (plain meaning and ambiguity in statute interpretation)