## Facts

- Cheryl Dowdell and Peter Bloomquist owned adjacent one-acre lots in a Charlestown, Rhode Island subdivision; Dowdell’s house sat higher and had a distant ocean view over Bloomquist’s lot.
- After Bloomquist sought a zoning variance for a second-story addition, Dowdell opposed the request, and the neighbors’ relationship deteriorated during months of proceedings before the zoning board.
- Bloomquist began clearing land near the shared boundary, and his counsel later warned Dowdell against trespassing.
- One day after the zoning board closed the variance hearing, Bloomquist planted four western arborvitae trees, each about 40 feet tall, in a row near the property line.
- The trees formed an approximately 60-foot-long barrier that substantially reduced light entering Dowdell’s upper-story windows and obstructed her view.
- Dowdell claimed the trees were planted maliciously to annoy her and to block her light and view, violating Rhode Island’s spite fence statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-10-20.
- After a nonjury trial, the Superior Court found Bloomquist acted with malice rather than a legitimate privacy purpose and ordered injunctive relief requiring the trees to be cut down to comply with the statute.
- Bloomquist appealed, disputing whether a row of trees fell within the statute and whether injunctive relief was available.

## Issues

1. Whether a deliberately planted row of trees can qualify as a “fence” or “other structure in the nature of a fence” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-10-20.
2. Whether, upon finding a statutory spite fence and private nuisance, a court may order injunctive abatement rather than limiting relief to damages.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Dowdell.
- The court held that a row of trees deliberately planted and maintained as a barrier can constitute a “fence” or “structure in the nature of a fence” under § 34-10-20.
- The court upheld the trial justice’s finding that Bloomquist planted the trees with malicious intent to annoy Dowdell, not for a legitimate privacy purpose.
- The court affirmed the injunction ordering the trees reduced/removed to abate the nuisance.
- A separate opinion agreed on liability but disagreed that injunctive relief was available, favoring damages only.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-10-20, a “fence” includes a barrier functionally serving as a fence; vegetation may qualify when arranged and maintained as a fence-like screen.
- Related statutory definitions may be used to interpret terms in § 34-10-20; the definition of lawful fences that includes hedges supports treating a hedge-like planting as a fence.
- A fence-like barrier “maliciously erected or maintained” to annoy an adjoining owner is a private nuisance under § 34-10-20.
- Appellate review gives substantial deference to a trial justice’s factual and credibility findings and will not disturb them absent clear error or overlooked material evidence.
- When a spite fence constitutes a private nuisance, courts may grant equitable relief to abate the nuisance, including ordering reduction or removal of the offending barrier.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a row of trees planted and maintained as a fence-like barrier can fall within the state’s spite fence statute when motivated by malice, and it affirmed injunctive relief ordering abatement of the resulting private nuisance.


Dowdell v. Bloomquist, 847 A.2d 827 (R.I. 2004)