## Facts

- Sundowner, Inc. owned the Desert Inn Motel in Caldwell, Idaho, on land immediately adjoining a motel owned by James C. King and Agnes C. King.
- After a prior, contentious business relationship and related litigation between the parties, the Kings erected a large structure near the boundary line.
- The structure was approximately 85 feet long and 18 feet high, was placed about 16 inches from the boundary line, and sat roughly 2 feet from the Desert Inn building.
- It paralleled the Desert Inn’s northwest side, obscured about 80% of the building, and restricted light and air to motel rooms.
- Sundowner sued for damages and injunctive relief, alleging the structure was a “spite fence” intended to harm Sundowner and that it violated a municipal ordinance.
- After reviewing testimony and visual evidence, the trial court found the structure was erected out of spite, had little or no advertising value, blocked light and air, and diminished the Desert Inn’s value.
- The trial court ordered partial abatement by reducing the structure’s height to six feet.

## Issues

1. Whether a structure erected on one’s property, predominantly to injure a neighbor and without legitimate utility, constitutes a “spite fence” actionable as a private nuisance.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s findings as to malice, lack of usefulness, and resulting harm.
3. Whether an injunction ordering partial abatement (reducing height to six feet) was a proper remedy.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering the structure reduced to a maximum height of six feet.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the findings that the structure was motivated by ill will, substantially interfered with light and air, and provided little or no legitimate advertising value.
- The court treated the structure’s label (sign versus fence) as immaterial where its effect and lack of utility showed it functioned as a spite fence.
- The court concluded that, under the modern American rule, a malicious, nonuseful structure intended to annoy or injure a neighbor constitutes a private nuisance subject to abatement.
- The court found it unnecessary to resolve the municipal-ordinance theory because the nuisance determination independently supported injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner has no right to maintain an otherwise useless structure erected primarily to annoy or injure an adjoining owner.
- A “spite fence” or malicious, nonuseful structure that substantially interferes with a neighbor’s enjoyment of property may constitute a private nuisance.
- Trial-court findings on motive, utility, and harm will be upheld on appeal when supported by substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.
- Injunctive relief may be tailored as partial abatement to eliminate the injurious interference without requiring complete removal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an injunction reducing the height of a boundary-line structure after finding it was built mainly out of malice, lacked legitimate utility, and substantially interfered with a neighboring motel’s light, air, and value; such a spite fence is a private nuisance that may be abated.


Sundowner, Inc. v. King, 95 Idaho 367, 509 P.2d 785 (Idaho 1973)