## Facts

- Michael and Jirina Obolensky owned a forty-acre property used as a bed-and-breakfast; the property’s value included access to mountain views from higher ground on their land.
- Robert and Sandra Trombley owned an adjacent 3.7-acre residential lot upslope with a direct mountain view; their house sat close to the shared boundary.
- After the Trombleys built their home, the parties disputed the boundary; conflict escalated after the Obolenskys placed “no trespassing” signs in an area the Trombleys also claimed and maintained.
- The Obolenskys sued to determine the boundary and asserted trespass claims.
- The parties resolved the boundary dispute by a 2011 stipulated judgment adopting a surveyed boundary, requiring an independent marking of corners, and stating each party could erect and maintain any fence “allowed by law.”
- After the stipulated judgment, the Obolenskys built a tall boundary fence that substantially blocked the Trombleys’ mountain view.
- The trial court found the fence complied with municipal height limits and provided some privacy, but also found the Obolenskys had other privacy measures (including trees) and that the fence’s primary purpose was to provoke or annoy the Trombleys.
- The trial court ordered the fence reduced in height under Vermont’s spite-fence statute and also resolved two disputed trespass incidents, rejecting some of the Obolenskys’ trespass claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the stipulated judgment allowing any fence “allowed by law” barred post-judgment relief under Vermont’s spite-fence statute.
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding the fence was erected primarily to annoy the Trombleys by obstructing their view, warranting an order to reduce its height.
3. Whether the trial court erred in its resolution of two alleged trespass incidents.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order requiring modification of the fence.
- The Court held the stipulated judgment did not authorize a fence prohibited by statute; “allowed by law” incorporated statutory limits, including the spite-fence statute.
- The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the fence’s primary purpose was to annoy by obstructing the Trombleys’ view, notwithstanding compliance with local height restrictions and some privacy benefit.
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the two trespass incidents challenged on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A fence that complies with municipal height limits may still be unlawful if erected primarily for the purpose of annoying an adjoining landowner by obstructing view or depriving light or air under Vermont’s spite-fence statute.
- A stipulated judgment permitting a fence “allowed by law” does not immunize a fence that violates a statute; such language is construed consistently with existing legal restrictions.
- Appellate review of a trial court’s findings regarding intent, motive, and credibility is deferential; such findings will be upheld absent clear error.
- In trespass disputes tried to the court, the trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence generally controls on appeal unless legal error or clear error is shown.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed an order reducing the height of a boundary fence where the trial court found, based on surrounding circumstances and the parties’ history, that the fence was built mainly to annoy the neighbors by blocking a valuable mountain view, and it also affirmed the trial court’s determinations on the challenged trespass claims.


Obolensky v. Trombley, 115 A.3d 1016 (Vt. 2015)