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

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

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.

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

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