D petitioned for a zoning variance from the Charlestown zoning board seeking permission to build a second-story addition to his home. P expressed concern about the petition, anxious that the addition would compromise her view of the Atlantic Ocean. The relationship between the neighbors became less than friendly. D began clearing land and digging holes to plant the disputed trees in a row between their homes. One day after the zoning board closed its hearing on D's variance request, D began planting the four western arborvitae trees that now stand in a row bordering the property line. P sued D alleging that D planted four western arborvitae trees on his property solely to exact revenge against her, to retaliate by blocking her view, and in violation of the spite fence statute. P sought legal and equitable relief. The judge found that the trees were planted to satisfy D's malicious intent, not his pretextual desire for privacy and that D had violated § 34-10-20. The trial justice granted P injunctive relief. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.